[2026] SADC 37

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR B STURM - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: RDS Counsel: MS M BARNES - Solicitor: EVITTS LEGAL Hearing Date/s: 08/09/2025 to 09/09/2025, 11/09/2025 to 12/09/2025, 03/11/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-24-009754 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 RDS Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SADC 37 Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer 23 April 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - GENERALLY CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CHARACTER AND PRIOR CONVICTIONS The accused, RDS, is charged with one count of Unlawful Sexual intercourse by a Person in Authority and one count of Aggravated Indecent Assault. The complainant, AM, is the accused’s biological daughter. The alleged offending, in each instance, is said to have occurred in the accused’s caravan at Elizabeth Vale, between 20 June 2023 and 10 August 2023, when AM was aged 17 and was staying overnight, with the accused, in the caravan. When AM visited the accused at the caravan, she slept on a couch inside the caravan. The accused slept on a bed at the opposite end of the caravan. As to the first count, AM alleges that she woke up on the couch, with the accused on top of her and the bottom half of her clothing removed. She described the accused’s penis as pushing into the entrance of her vagina, causing her pain. She said he did not go any further because he knew she was a virgin. AM disclosed the alleged offending in count 1 to her friend, DA, in LK’s company, about four weeks thereafter. She continued to visit and stay with the accused after the alleged offending in count 1 and after making that complaint. As to the second count, AM alleges that she woke up on the couch, with the accused on top of her, at which time he was rubbing her vagina, over the top of her clothing. -- 1 of 101 -- Two days after the alleged offending in count 2, AM gave a detailed statement to police which was prompted by DA attending the police station to report the alleged offending, out of concern for AM. At the time of the accused’s arrest, police seized his mobile phone. The data on that phone was analysed and demonstrated that the accused had regularly searched for and watched legal, adult pornography, with a large proportion of that pornography being ‘daddy/daughter’ pornography. The accused had specifically searched for pornography using search terms including ‘waking+up+ daughter’, ‘dad+and+daughter+share+bed’ and ‘daughters+first+time’. The accused had saved on his mobile phone an image from a hardcore pornographic website entitled ‘Dad Plays with Teen Daughter’. This evidence was admitted pursuant to s 34P(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, for improbability of account reasoning. The accused gave evidence, wherein he denied the offending in each count. He gave evidence explaining why he had searched for and watched ‘daddy/daughter’ pornography. He admitted having a sexual interest in such pornography, but denied having any sexual interest in AM or of ever having acted out what he had watched, or listened to, with AM. The accused gave evidence that he was physically incapable of having committed the alleged offending because of the effect on his mobility of a long term back injury. The defence case also focussed on several other aspects of AM’s account, said to be implausible. The accused called JD to give ‘good character’ evidence. JD’s primary dealings with the accused were over 20 years prior to the alleged offending, when the accused was teenager. JD had only limited, intermittent contact with the accused, when he was an adult. Verdict: The accused is guilty of both counts. Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5, 5AA(1)(g), 5AA(4a)(d), 49(9)(b), 57(1), 75; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 74EB; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13A(12), 13BA, 34L, 34M, 34P(2)(a); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 128(2), referred to. R v Molloy [2014] SADC 141; R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013) 117 SASR 81; R v Heinze [2017] SASCFC 155; Morton (A Pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 29; R v Dhir [2019] SASCFC 55; R v Corrigan (1998) 74 SASR 454, considered. -- 2 of 101 -- R v RDS [2026] SADC 37 [Criminal] Introduction 1 The accused, RDS, is charged on Information dated 19 April 2024 with two counts for offending against his biological daughter, AM. 2 The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927. The Charges 3 The charges relate to two separate occasions of alleged sexual offending in 2023, when AM was aged 17. The offending in each instance is alleged to have occurred when AM stayed overnight with RDS in a caravan in the backyard of his parents’ home at Elizabeth Vale. Count 1 Offence Details Unlawful Sexual Intercourse by a Person in Authority. (Section 49(5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars RDS between the 20th day of June 2023 and the 10th day of August 2023 at Elizabeth Vale, being in a position of authority in relation to AM, a person under the age of 18 years, had sexual intercourse with her, by inserting his penis into her vagina and/or labia majora. This may be a ‘disqualification offence’ within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. Count 2 Offence Details Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars RDS between the 20th day of June 2023 and the 10th day of August 2023 at Elizabeth Vale, indecently assaulted AM, by touching her vagina. Circumstance of Aggravation It is further alleged that RDS committed the assault knowing that AM was a child of whom he has custody as a parent or guardian. Prescribed, Qualifying, Disqualification and/or Presumptive Disqualification Offence -- 3 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 2 This may be a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning of sections 5 and 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. This may be a ‘disqualification offence’ within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. This may be a ‘presumptive disqualification offence’ within the meaning of sections 18A and 18U of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. Amendment to Information 4 The Information was amended during the trial. 5 The first amendment related to the date range of the alleged offending in both counts. The Information had particularised the alleged offending as having occurred between 21 June 2023 and 10 August 2023. At the commencement of the trial, that date range was amended, by consent, to commence on 20 June 2023. 6 At the completion of the prosecutor’s closing address, as to count 1, the prosecutor applied to amend the particulars of the act of unlawful sexual intercourse to add the words ‘and/or labia majora’ after the word ‘vagina’. The application was opposed. My reasons for granting that application are outlined at paragraphs 388 to 399. Elements of the Charged Offences Count 1 - Unlawful Sexual Intercourse by a Person in Authority 7 There are three elements of this offence, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: 1. the accused had sexual intercourse with AM; 2. AM was under the age of 18 years at the time; and 3. the accused was a position in authority in relation to AM. 8 ‘Sexual intercourse’ is defined in s 5 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (the Act) to include any activity consisting of or involving the penetration of a person’s vagina or labia majora by any part of the body of another person. 9 The offending is alleged to have occurred between 20 June 2023 and 10 August 2023. AM was born on 18 October 2005 and was therefore aged 17, and a child, at this time.1 10 AM is the accused’s biological daughter, whom she saw on a regular basis at the time of the alleged offending, albeit she did not live with him. A person is in a position of authority in relation to a child if they are a parent of the child.2 1 Exhibit P13 at [1]. 2 Section 49(9)(b) of the Act. -- 4 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 3 11 There is a statutory alternative to this charge. Pursuant to s 75 of the Act, if the trier of fact is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence as charged but is satisfied that he is guilty of indecent assault,3 then the Court must find the accused not guilty of the offence charged but may find the accused guilty of the lesser offence.4 Count 2 - Aggravated Indecent Assault 12 The offence of aggravated indecent assault comprises three elements which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: 1. the accused assaulted AM. An assault is the intentional and unlawful application of force (directly or indirectly) to another person; 2. the assault occurred in or was accompanied by circumstances of indecency. It is a matter for me to consider whether the proven conduct of the accused is indecent by reference to reasonable contemporary standards. The conduct must have a sexual connotation; and 3. at the time of the assault, AM was a child of the accused.5 13 Pursuant to s 57(1) of the Act, a person under the age of 18 years will be taken not to be capable of consenting to an indecent assault committed by a person who is in a position of authority in relation to them. 14 As previously stated, AM was 17 at the time of the alleged offending. The accused, as her father, was a person in a position of authority in relation to her. As such, consent is not an issue as to count 2. Witnesses and exhibits 15 The prosecution called evidence from AM. 16 Part of AM’s evidence-in-chief comprised an edited audio-visual recording of a prescribed interview conducted between her and Senior Constable C Dawson (Officer Dawson) on 11 August 2023 (the AM interview).6 In addition, evidence was called from: (a) AM’s maternal grandfather, BM; (b) DA and LT, both of whom gave evidence of initial complaint; 3 See elements hereunder. If the circumstance of aggravation is proved the appropriate alternative charge is aggravated indecent assault; R v Molloy [2014] SADC 141. 4 Noting this is premised on the basis that there is a case to answer as to the offence charged, R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013) 117 SASR 81 at [68]. 5 As per s 5AA(1)(g) and s 5AA(4a)(d) of the Act. 6 Exhibit P1, the transcript of which was provided as an Aide, MFI P2. For ease of reference, I will use the transcript to identify passages in that evidence, noting the evidence is what can be seen and heard on the audio-visual recording, not what is in the transcript. -- 5 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 4 (c) AM’s maternal grandmother, GM; and (d) Brevet Sergeant L Davis, the investigating officer (Officer Davis). 17 The prosecution tendered numerous exhibits including a Statement of Further Agreed Facts which related to material found on a Samsung mobile phone seized from the accused on 11 August 20237 and various schedules produced from data extracted from that phone.8 18 The accused elected to give evidence and called character evidence from his friend, JD. Legal directions General 19 The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no onus on the accused to prove anything. It is not for the accused to prove that he did not commit the offence(s) as charged. 20 As to each count, the accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the charge unless and until the evidence that I accept satisfies me that every element of the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt will suffice. 21 There are two counts on the Information. I must assess these counts separately and only take into account the evidence that is relevant and admissible to the count under consideration. 22 As to each count, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or to show that the accused is probably guilty. Before the accused is convicted of an offence, I must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of that offence. I must reject beyond reasonable doubt the accused’s denial and any explanation(s) proffered by him. 23 In these reasons, if I use the words ‘proved’, ‘established’ or ‘satisfied’, I mean to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. As to each count, considered separately, if I am satisfied that there is a reasonable explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused, or I am uncertain where the truth lies, then I must find the charge has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 24 I must assess each witness as to their truthfulness and their reliability. I must determine whether I can rely upon the evidence that a witness gives. I can reject or accept all or a part of a witness’ evidence. 25 The offending, in each instance, is alleged to have occurred in a caravan in the backyard of the home occupied by the accused’s parents and several other 7 Exhibit P14. 8 Exhibits P7-P12. -- 6 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 5 persons. None of the occupants of that home were called to give evidence. I must not speculate about the nature of any evidence I have not heard. I simply do not know what evidence may have been given by any absent witness. I must decide the case only on the evidence before me. 26 The accused was under no obligation to give evidence. I should give him whatever credit I see fit for subjecting himself to cross-examination at trial. I must assess his evidence in the same way as I assess the evidence of any other witness. I remind myself that if I reject the accused’s evidence in its entirety, that does not bolster, nor strengthen the prosecution case. The prosecution must prove each element of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. 27 There was evidence that AM had consumed alcohol and cannabis prior to the alleged offending in count 1. There was also evidence led that the accused had consumed cannabis prior to the offending in counts 1 and 2. 28 There was no expert evidence called as to the potential impact of the consumption of cannabis (or alcohol) on either AM or the accused at any relevant time. However, it is a common experience that if a witness was intoxicated at a relevant time, that can have an adverse bearing on that witness’ recollection of events and/or their subsequent recall of relevant events. It is also a common experience that intoxication may reduce a person’s inhibitions, it may cause them to be more relaxed or more outgoing, and it may cause them to do things they may not do if they were not intoxicated. 29 If I was to find that a witness was intoxicated by alcohol or a drug at any relevant time, this may affect the proper assessment of their reliability as a witness. It is a matter for me to make findings, based on the evidence that I have heard, as to the extent to which any witness may have been affected by alcohol or drugs and what effect that has had on their general reliability. 30 As to the making of inferences, I must not guess or speculate. There must be a logical and rational connection between the facts I find and the inferences I draw. 31 I must bring an open and unprejudiced mind to the case. I must make my decision without sympathy, without prejudice, or fear and must not be influenced by public opinion in relation to this matter. AM’s evidence 32 The AM interview was conducted on 11 August 2023, when AM was aged 17. An audio-visual recording was made of that record of interview. There is no dispute that the interview was made in accordance with s 74EB of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SOA). 33 An edited copy of the audio-visual recording of the AM interview was admitted into evidence pursuant to s 13BA of the Evidence Act 1929 (EA). I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused because of this, nor allow the -- 7 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 6 admission of the evidence in that form to influence the weight given to that evidence.9 34 Permission was granted for the prosecution to lead further evidence from AM by way of evidence-in-chief and re-examination and for the accused to cross- examine AM, on various specific topics. AM gave her evidence via audio-visual link from outside of court, the Court was closed and her evidence was recorded. I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused, nor allow those special arrangements, to influence the weight given to that evidence.10 35 Insofar as was necessary, permission was sought, and granted, for evidence to be led pursuant to s 34L of the EA as to AM’s sexual activities before the alleged offending, the Court being satisfied that such evidence was of substantive probative value and that its admission was in the interests of justice.11 Complaint evidence 36 AM gave evidence that the first person she told about the alleged offending in count 1 was her friend, DA, and that at that time, LT was also present. AM described a conversation which occurred in the Tea Tree Plaza Food Court, about three to four weeks prior to the AM interview. Both DA and LT gave evidence as to their recollection of this occasion. DA also gave evidence about a further conversation with AM at which time AM described the alleged offending in count 1 in more detail. 37 AM gave evidence of her complaint to DA, via text message, with respect to the alleged offending in count 2. 38 This evidence was admitted as evidence of initial complaint as to the offending in each count pursuant to s 34M of the EA. 39 Evidence of initial complaint is an exception to the rule which prohibits proof of prior, out of court, consistent statements. That evidence is admitted to inform me as to how the allegations first came to light and as evidence of the degree of consistency of AM’s conduct. 40 Importantly, complaint evidence is not admitted as evidence of the truth of what was alleged and cannot be used as some form of independent evidence to prove what happened, as, only AM’s evidence as to the allegations of the specific offending against her, is able to prove that. 41 There may be many and varied reasons why an alleged victim of a sexual offence has made a complaint at a particular time or to a particular person. It is for 9 Section 13A(12) of the EA. 10 Ibid. 11 This evidence related to whether the accused knew, at the time of the alleged offending in count 1, that AM was a virgin. -- 8 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 7 me to determine the significance (if any) of the evidence in the circumstances of this case. Evidence of good character 42 The accused’s Antecedent History was tendered.12 The accused has prior convictions for driving offences committed in 2008 and 2011, but no other criminal record. 43 JD gave evidence attesting to her view that RSD was an honest man and a man of good character. She also gave evidence of his reputation generally as being known for his honesty. 44 This ‘good character’ evidence is relevant both to the probability that the accused committed either of the alleged offences and to the Court’s assessment of the credibility of the accused’s ongoing denial of the alleged offending. 45 It is a factor affecting whether there is a reasonable explanation on the evidence consistent with the accused being innocent of either count. 46 Of course, if the Court finds that the accused is a man of prior good character, this does not mean it must find him not guilty of either alleged offence. Sometimes persons of previous good character do offend. Discreditable conduct Discreditable conduct notice dated 3 September 2025 47 The Prosecution filed a Notice of Intention to Adduce Discreditable Conduct at trial whereby it advised of an intention to adduce evidence of each charged act of sexual misconduct, in proof of both charged counts. 13 48 The prosecution sought to rely on this evidence for both non-propensity and propensity purposes on the basis that the evidence tended to demonstrate that the accused had a sexual interest in AM and a tendency to act in furtherance of that interest, and that as a circumstantial fact, this made it more likely that: 1. the conduct occurred as alleged by AM; 2. it was the accused who engaged in the alleged conduct; 3. the conduct in count 2 had a sexual connotation; and 4. the accused’s relationship with AM was other than an innocent one. 12 Exhibit D15. 13 FDN 36 at Item 2. The Notice also stipulated an intention to rely on evidence of uncharged acts for similar propensity purposes. At trial, the prosecution disavowed any reliance on AM’s evidence of uncharged acts for a propensity purpose; T 31.3-32.4. -- 9 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 8 49 There was no dispute, and I am satisfied, that the evidence as to counts 1 and 2 is relevant and cross admissible in proof of both counts. 50 If I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offending in count 1, I can use that evidence in my consideration of count 2 insofar as it demonstrates that the accused had a sexual interest in AM and a tendency to act upon that interest. 51 Similarly, if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offending in count 2, I can use that evidence in my consideration of count 1 insofar as it demonstrates that the accused had a sexual interest in AM and a tendency to act upon that interest. 52 However, I must not use this evidence to reason that the accused is more likely to have committed any of the offences because of the multiplicity of allegations. I must not reason from this evidence that the accused is a person of bad character and is therefore the type of person who would have committed the offences and therefore is more likely to have committed either offence. 53 I am satisfied that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused and that the evidence has strong probative value having regard to the particular issues at trial. 54 In addition, the prosecution sought to adduce evidence that the accused had searched for and/or accessed pornographic material relating to sexual activity between fathers and daughters and fathers and step-daughters.14 55 There was material found on the accused’s phone which demonstrated he had been searching for and accessing a large volume of pornographic material in the period prior to the alleged offending, which included pornography of various types or genres, including pornography marketed as involving sexual activity between fathers and their daughters and/or step-daughters. 56 This was not child exploitation material, nor did the material depict acts which would constitute incest as the people shown or heard in the material were not actually fathers and daughters, they were simply actors. 57 Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the evidence sought to be adduced is evidence of discreditable conduct. An available inference from the evidence is that the accused had an interest in watching and/or listening to pornographic material marketed as involving fathers and their daughters or step-daughters and that he had a prurient interest in such material. Many people would consider such an interest to be abhorrent. 14 FDN 36 at Item 1. -- 10 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 9 58 The prosecution sought to rely on the evidence for both non-propensity (improbability reasoning) and non-propensity purposes. 59 As to the former, it was submitted that the fact the accused had a prurient interest in material involving sexual activity between fathers and daughters/step- daughters,15 and had acted on that interest at a time in close proximity to the alleged offending, was relevant to the Court’s evaluation of the improbability that AM would fabricate these allegations, in circumstances where she was unaware of the accused having sought out and/or accessed such material. 60 In addition, it was submitted that the evidence could be used for propensity purposes as it tended to demonstrate that the accused had a sexual interest in AM and a tendency to act in furtherance of that interest, at a time proximate to the charged acts, and that as a circumstantial fact, this made it more likely that: 1. the conduct occurred as alleged by AM; 2. it was the accused who engaged in the alleged conduct; 3. the conduct in count 2 had a sexual connotation; and 4. the accused’s relationship with AM was other than an innocent one. 61 The accused objected to the admission of such evidence, on the basis that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. 62 It was argued that none of the material demonstrated a sexual interest in AM as such, nor any alleged tendency to act on such interest, meaning the propensity use sought to be made of the material was unavailable. 63 Further, it was submitted that as the material was publicly available on the internet and accessed by many users, there was nothing unusual about the accused having searched for or accessing the material, or nothing unique about the material which enlivened improbability reasoning, thus distinguishing the circumstances of this matter from R v Heinze.16 64 I ruled that the evidence was admissible, but only pursuant to s 34P(2)(a) and for a non-propensity use, namely improbability of account reasoning. 65 Although none of the material related specifically to ‘children’, some of the material referenced teenagers. AM was a teenager at the time of the alleged offending. Some specifically related to fathers and daughters/step-daughters engaging in sexual activity when the daughter/step-daughter was asleep or being woken by such activity. AM alleges the alleged offending against her occurred in such circumstances. Notwithstanding other members of the public may seek out 15 Relevantly including material which depicted sexual acts at a time when the daughter/step-daughter was sleeping. 16 [2017] SASCFC 155. -- 11 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 10 and access such material, there being a market for it, I agree with the prosecution submission that to do so is out of the ordinary. Those who do, represent but a percentage of the percentage of the population who access any type of adult pornography. 66 It is most improbable that AM, ignorant of the fact that RSD’s mobile phone contained data which demonstrated he had sought out and accessed such material, would fabricate an account of him having offended against her in the way she described. 67 The material is prejudicial insofar as it demonstrates the accused had an interest in viewing material that most people would consider to be depraved and reflect poorly on him. However, the probative value of the material, in my view, outweighs the prejudicial effect. 68 As outlined by the Court of Appeal in R v Heinze, 17 the use of the material as a foundation for improbability or fabrication use does not rely on a finding that the accused had a propensity or proclivity to act out the images he enjoyed viewing. A person may derive prurient interest in the viewing of such material but not harbour a desire to replicate it. 69 In these circumstances, while admissible for this non-propensity use, I am not satisfied the material demonstrates the accused had a sexual interest in AM as such, nor a propensity to act on such an interest. What it does demonstrate is that the accused had a sexual interest in viewing and/or listening to such material and that he acted in furtherance of that interest by actively seeking out and watching and/or listening to such material, in a period reasonably proximate to the time of the alleged offending, particularly the offending in count 2. The material is not admissible for the propensity purpose as sought to be used by the prosecutor. 70 If I accept that the data on the accused’s mobile phone demonstrates that he sought out and/or accessed material involving sexual activity between fathers and daughters/step-daughters at a time in close proximity to the alleged offending, then I can use that material for the permissible purpose as specified. I must not use that evidence to reason that the accused is more likely to have committed either of the offences because of this conduct. Further, I must not reason from this evidence that the accused is a person of bad character and is therefore the type of person who would commit any of the alleged offences. Other discreditable conduct evidence 71 AM gave evidence of other times when she claims the accused touched her on her vagina and breasts on dates prior to the offending in count 2. These were uncharged acts. 17 Ibid. -- 12 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 11 72 The evidence was led without objection. It was not led for a propensity purpose. 73 This evidence was relevant and admissible for permissible non-propensity purposes, namely, by way of background and to give context to the circumstances in which the alleged offending occurred, that is, that the offending in count 2 did not otherwise occur in isolation. Although the evidence was unclear as to precisely when these uncharged acts occurred, they occurred before the complaint that was made as to count 2. The accused was only arrested (and/or became aware of the fact AM had complained) after that compliant was made. As such, the evidence of the uncharged acts may also explain why the accused was emboldened to offend as to, at least, count 2. 74 AM gave evidence that the accused smoked cannabis immediately prior to the offending in both counts 1 and 2 and that he either provided her with alcohol and cannabis (or acquiesced as to its provision to her) immediately prior to the offending in count 1. AM was aged 17 and still a child. This is evidence of discreditable conduct. 75 This evidence was relevant and admissible for a permissible non-propensity purpose, namely, to give context to the circumstances in which the alleged offending in both counts occurred. 76 If I accept this evidence, I must only use it for the permissible purpose or purposes as specified. I must not use the evidence to reason that the accused is more likely to have committed either of the offences because of this conduct. Further, I must not reason from this evidence that the accused is a person of bad character and is therefore the type of person who would commit any of the alleged offences. Other 77 As to the discreditable conduct evidence, I am satisfied that the permissible use of such evidence is and can be kept sufficiently separate and distinct from the impermissible use so as to remove any appreciable risk of the evidence being used for that purpose. 78 If any of the discreditable conduct evidence is essential to the process of reasoning leading to a finding of guilt, the evidence cannot be used unless on the whole of the evidence, the facts in proof of which the evidence was admitted, are established beyond reasonable doubt. Lies 79 The accused was cross-examined about a text message he sent on 18 June 2023 to a contact, ‘Possible Work Adam’. The accused gave evidence that what he had said in that message, namely that he was able to walk around unaided, was not true and he gave evidence to explain why he had lied about this. -- 13 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 12 80 The prosecutor submitted that the explanation given by the accused was a lie and that, in fact, what the accused had said in the message about his mobility at that time, was true. 81 The accused also gave evidence to explain why he had entered various search terms when using pornographic websites and why he had watched certain types of pornography. The manner in which the accused was questioned in cross- examination and the prosecution’s submissions urged the Court to make a finding that the accused was lying about this. 82 Insofar as it may be suggested that the accused lied either in the message to ‘Possible Work Adam’, or in his evidence to the Court about that message, or about his use of pornography, or on any other topic, I remind myself that whether the accused has told a lie or lies is a matter for me to determine. If I am satisfied the accused has lied, this is relevant and can be used in my assessment of the accused’s credibility. However, I cannot use this as evidence of his guilt. If I find the accused has lied, it does not add to the prosecution case. It remains for me to determine, having regard to all of the evidence, whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt. Motive to lie 83 It was the defence case that AM had a motive to lie about the alleged offending, namely that she was upset and angry at the accused, following an argument they had at the caravan, the night before she first went shooting with BM. AM denied there was any such argument and denied she had lied about the alleged offending either because of this, or at all. 84 The accused gave evidence wherein he described having a heated argument with AM, at the caravan, the night before she first went shooting with BM. 85 I must take this argument into account, and the evidence in support of it, when assessing AM’s evidence. 86 However, if I reject the proposition that AM had such a motive to lie, I remind myself that there is no onus on the accused to prove that she had a reason to make false allegations against him. 87 The absence of any motive to lie, does not the mean that AM is telling the truth about the alleged offending. There may be many reasons why a witness may lie. I must not treat AM’s evidence as being any more credible or believable just because there is no evidence to provide a reason for why she may be lying. I must carefully consider all of the evidence to determine whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to AM’s credibility and reliability. -- 14 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 13 AM’s evidence Background 88 AM’s prescribed interview was conducted on 11 August 2023 when she was aged 17 (nearly 18). At the time of trial, AM was aged 19 (nearly 20). 89 AM is the oldest child born to the accused and GM. She has a younger sister, LS, born in 2015. AM explained that the relationship between her parents had been an on again/off again relationship, when she was growing up. She first met the accused when she was aged six. Thereafter, the accused spent periods of time living with GM and AM, including when LS was born.18 90 The accused left the family home to live elsewhere when AM was aged about 12. At first, he lived by himself, at which time, AM would see him every second weekend.19 91 In about mid-2022, the accused moved to live with his parents in Elizabeth East, where he slept in a caravan in the backyard of the property.20 At that time, AM and LS were living with their maternal grandmother. Thereafter, AM would go to see the accused at his parents’ house every Wednesday, every weekend and on other occasions during the week. Given her age, it was her choice whether she went to see him. LS only visited the accused about once or twice a fortnight or month.21 92 AM had lived with her mother, GM, until she was aged about 15. There was no evidence as to precisely why AM stopped living with her mother and went to live with her paternal grandmother. However, it was an agreed fact that at the time of the alleged offending in count 1, there was in Intervention Order in place for AM’s protection, which included a condition that her mother was not to have any contact with her.22 The accused’s health and mobility 93 AM gave evidence in cross-examination, that in around June to August 2023, the accused had a back injury that stopped him from working. She said that as a result, he struggled to move and to walk for long periods of time and that if it was really bad, he would have to use a cane. AM disagreed with a proposition that he had to use the cane all the time but said he used it most of the time.23 94 AM agreed with a proposition that the accused’s back pain caused him difficulty sitting down for long periods and said his biggest struggle was getting 18 T 46.1-28; T 69.16-25. 19 T 46.37-47.11. 20 T 47.12-27. 21 T 47.28-48.7; T 71.1-2; T 76.22. 22 T 86.5-12; T 101.4-6. 23 T 76.23-77.3; T 97.20-21. -- 15 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 14 up and sitting down.24 He would need to use either the cane or a piece of furniture to push up from, to help him get off the bed or a chair.25 95 AM described an occasion, when they were in the caravan, and he had fallen between his bed and a small couch and was yelling out in pain. He could not get up as his leg was stuck under the bed. She had to help him to get his leg unstuck and to get up from this position.26 96 AM had never seen her father kneeling on the floor at his parent’s house. She said that he only ever sat on couches or chairs, not on the floor and that he tried not to bend down as much as possible because of his back.27 97 In re-examination, AM was asked if she remembered seeing her father walk without his cane in the hours prior to each alleged occasion of offending and said he did not use the cane at either time.28 The accused’s phone 98 AM was asked if prior to first speaking to the police about the alleged offending, she was aware of any pornography or searches for pornography on the accused’s phone. She said, ‘Not that I recall’.29 99 There was no evidence to suggest that AM had ever used the accused’s mobile phone or that she had any knowledge of what was on the accused’s mobile phone. The caravan 100 AM gave evidence that on occasions when she visited the accused, she would stay overnight in the caravan with him. Both offences were alleged to have occurred in the caravan, when she was staying overnight and when only she and the accused (and their cat) were in the caravan. 101 AM drew a plan of the interior of the caravan during her prescribed interview.30 Several photographs depicting the caravan were also in evidence.31 102 AM explained that the accused slept on the bed located at one end of the caravan, which she identified as being the bed depicted in photograph 1 of Exhibit P4.32 She slept on a narrow couch located on the opposite side of the caravan, as depicted in photograph 2 of Exhibit P4.33 AM agreed that if she was 24 T 77.21-28. 25 T 97.22-98.2. 26 T 77.31-79.5. 27 T 79.13-22. 28 T 102.13-31. 29 T 68.28. 30 Exhibit P3. 31 Exhibit P4. 32 T 49.23-50.3. 33 T 50.6-12. -- 16 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 15 lying on her back, on that couch, there would not be room for anyone else to lie next to her, on the couch.34 She disagreed with a proposition put to her in cross- examination that the couch was too small for the accused to have been on it at the same time as her.35 103 AM agreed that the caravan could get quite cold in winter. As such, in winter, she would generally sleep with a quilt on top of her and in warm clothes, such as trackpants, a t-shirt and sometimes a jumper.36 There was a nightlight in the caravan, which the accused would turn off when he went to sleep.37 The house 104 AM spent time both in the house and in the caravan when she visited the accused. She agreed that there was a couch in the living room of the house that was long enough to lie on, although she had never slept on that couch.38 As there was no toilet in the caravan, the backdoor of the house would be kept unlocked, to allow AM and/or the accused to enter the house to use the toilet.39 105 In addition to the accused’s parents, AM’s uncle (the accused’s brother), AM’s cousin (the accused’s nephew) and AM’s cousin’s girlfriend, C, were living (or staying) at the house at the time of the alleged offending.40 106 Photograph 4 of Exhibit P4 shows the side of the house and two windows, one of which appeared to be open in the photograph. AM identified those windows as being her uncle’s bedroom window and her cousin’s bedroom window. AM was asked if the bedroom window closest to the caravan was always kept open when she stayed there. She said she did not know, as she did not pay attention to it. AM was also asked if someone yelled from the caravan, would they be heard by someone in the house. She said that it would depend on how loud the person was yelling and that she could not recall ever being in the house on an occasion when her father had yelled out to her from the caravan.41 107 AM was asked about her relationship with those who lived at the house. She agreed that she had a good relationship with her grandmother, who she called Nan. She said they were close and that she would talk to her Nan every time she saw her. She disagreed with a proposition that she would talk to her Nan about problems she might be having.42 34 T 80.2-4; T 88.25-89.2. 35 T 88.36-89.2. 36 T 81.3-34. 37 T 80.13-81.2. 38 T 75.12-27. 39 T 75.28-38. 40 T 53.32-54.5. 41 T 99.1-24. 42 T 73.35-38; T 74.5-15. -- 17 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 16 108 AM gave evidence that although she had a good relationship with her grandfather (‘Pop’), they did not talk often.43 She had a close relationship with her uncle, albeit she described being a little intimidated by him. She had a good relationship with her cousin, although they did not speak often. She had a really close relationship her cousin’s girlfriend, C. She trusted everyone who lived at the house.44 Alleged offending in count 1 109 AM gave evidence that the very first time something had happened with the accused had occurred the day before she went shooting with her maternal grandfather (BM), who she called ‘Nannu’. When recounting when this was, she said, ‘The first time or the sec? – yeah the first time’.45 110 When questioned further about this alleged incident, AM was asked about the incident by reference to the fact it occurred the night before she first went shooting with her grandfather. She had located the text messages she had exchanged with her grandfather about that occasion.46 From those messages, she identified the date of that shooting trip as Thursday 22 June 2023, from which she determined the date of the alleged offending in count 1.47 111 AM gave evidence that she had gone to visit the accused on the Wednesday (21 June 2023) and had stayed overnight with the accused, in the caravan. She recalled spending some time that evening in the house, sitting around the dining room table, smoking cannabis, with everyone in the house, other than C. She said her cousin was packing the ‘weed’ into a bong and then it would be handed out to whoever wanted it.48 She did not have very much weed, ‘maybe a small nugget.’49 She estimated that she was smoking weed at about 10:00pm or 11:00pm but said the others (including the accused) had been smoking weed during the day.50 112 AM also remembered consuming one can of rum and coke.51 113 When asked how she came to be smoking and drinking alcohol, she said that the accused had offered – he had asked if she wanted to have a joint or a drink, and she agreed.52 The accused maybe had one or two drinks but he was mostly just smoking weed.53 43 T 74.1-4. 44 T 74.16-75.11. 45 MFIP2 at line 302. 46 Exhibit P5. 47 T 52.2-53.4. 48 T 73.8-24. 49 T 58.12. 50 T 55.7-12. 51 T 58.14-20. 52 T 55.13-18. 53 T 57.36-37. -- 18 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 17 114 This was not the first time she had consumed either weed or alcohol. On this particular occasion, she remembered it made her feel ‘really like drowsy and relaxed.’54 115 AM gave evidence that she went to bed around midnight. She had not noticed any change in the accused’s behaviour before she went to bed.55 116 She slept on her back on the narrow couch in the caravan, such that her head was on a pillow at the end of the couch adjacent to the microwave and her feet were at the other end, near the built-in cupboard and the caravan door.56 117 AM gave evidence that she woke up at some point in the night with her dad (the accused) on top of her. Her legs were open and she had no clothing on the bottom part of her body. She remembered that she had been wearing a long sleeve t-shirt, underwear and pink pyjama shorts with flowers on them.57 She presumed the accused must have removed her shorts and underwear. Her t-shirt was still on.58 He had no pants on, nor any underwear. She could feel his penis right against her vagina and ‘like pushing into it. Not like completely but like a little bit if that makes sense’.59 She said, ‘(s)o it wasn’t actually like in in or like breaking that wall’.60 118 AM described having woken up in pain as it was really hurting and going ‘ouch’ and ‘what the fuck’. The accused had told her to ‘sssshhh’ and said, ‘it’s okay, it’s okay, I’m not doing anything this is all I’ll do’. She said she remembered gripping the bed and gripping the blanket as tightly as she could. She was groaning in pain as it hurt so much. 61 The pain she felt was in her vagina, where the entrance is.62 119 When AM was asked to explain exactly what had happened, she said that the accused, ‘wasn’t doing it properly but enough for it to actually push in slightly’.63 Later, she said, ‘(h)e never actually went in, it was just the, like the barrier, It wasn’t, it was only like this, the ... oh my God what’s the word – it was only the en, like the beginning of the entrance ... like the very bit, like the very front of it.’64 120 She was too scared to push him off her and say ‘no’.65 54 T 57.30. 55 T 53.5-6; T 58.1-3. 56 T 51.12-25. 57 MFIP2 at lines 370-374. 58 Ibid at lines 384-390. 59 Ibid at lines 306, 341-348. 60 Ibid at line 310. 61 Ibid at lines 312, 414-418. 62 T 53.16-19. 63 MFIP2 at line 352. 64 Ibid at lines 432-434. 65 Ibid at line 356. -- 19 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 18 121 She did not think the accused used a condom. He did not ejaculate.66 122 AM gave evidence that after a minute or two, the accused eventually stopped. He knelt down beside her and gave her a hug. He had said, ‘there you go’ and ‘I didn’t do anything bad ... that’s all I’ll do, don’t worry.’67 AM disagreed with a proposition put to her in cross-examination that the accused could not have knelt down on the floor because of his back problems. She said he had either pushed himself up off the floor by using the bed or the fridge for support.68 123 AM explained that she was a virgin. When describing how the accused had pushed his penis into her, she said, ‘Not completely cos I’m still a virgin’.69 She said:70 He was just doing it at the very barrier because he knows that I’m not ready to lose my virginity yet. 124 She agreed that he had not tried to go any further and that that was where he had stopped (ie ‘at the very barrier’).71 125 AM was asked how the accused knew she was a virgin. She said that she thought she had mentioned it before to him, in person and that she was very open about not wanting to lose her virginity to some random person. She could not remember precisely what she had said to him about this.72 126 AM gave evidence that after it was over, the accused invited her outside for a smoke (a cigarette), she had a cigarette with him and then she went to bed and straight back to sleep. She could not remember what (if anything) they had spoken about when they were smoking.73 127 In cross-examination, AM was asked questions about why she had (or had not) done certain things after the alleged offending. She had not used her mobile phone to message anyone to tell them what had happened. She had not gone into the house to tell anyone there about what had happened, as it was the middle of the night.74 Although she was scared something else could have happened, she went back to sleep, in the caravan, as she had plans for the next morning. She did not know why she had not gone inside and slept on the couch in the living room. She denied that she had done, or not done, these things, as the offending had not, in fact, occurred. 75 66 Ibid at lines 536-538. 67 Ibid at lines 314 and 420. 68 T 98.3-24. 69 MFIP2 at line 350. 70 Ibid at line 532. 71 Ibid at line 534. 72 T 54.6-24. 73 MFIP2 at lines 422, 442 and 447-452; T 54.28-32. 74 T 89.17-25. 75 T 90.6-22. -- 20 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 19 128 AM was also cross-examined about certain details of the alleged offending. She agreed with a proposition put to her that she had been wearing trackpants on that occasion.76 She said that when she woke up, her trackpants and underwear were completely off her body. She did not know how they came to be off.77 129 The next morning, she woke at around 8:00am, had a smoke and got dressed in the caravan, while the accused was still asleep. She did not go inside the house to use the toilet.78 She sat on the bed, waiting for BM to arrive to take her shooting. BM rang her on her mobile phone, to let her know he had arrived. At about the same time, the accused’s father had knocked on the caravan door to let her know that BM was there.79 130 In cross-examination, it was suggested to AM that the accused woke up, when his father knocked on the caravan door. AM said that she did not think that that had happened. However, she agreed with a proposition put to her that she had walked with her father, to the gate, to meet BM. She had then hugged her father and said goodbye to him.80 131 AM gave evidence that she and BM then drove to somewhere in the hills to go shooting, where they stayed for around two to three hours. They then went to a little café for lunch. She remembered that while they were eating lunch, she needed to go to the toilet. When she went to wipe after going to the toilet it hurt to open her legs to be able to wipe. She described it as being really painful and remembered gripping the toilet in pain. She had then returned to BM, put on a fake smile and continued eating.81 BM had then driven her to GM’s house.82 Alleged offending in count 2 132 AM gave evidence that the alleged offending in count 2 had occurred two days before she gave her prescribed interview, on Wednesday (9 August 2023).83 133 This incident had also occurred in the caravan on the little couch that she used to sleep on. She was alone in the caravan with the accused and her cat.84 She had been asleep on the little couch, but woke up, during the night, with the accused right on top of her. He was touching her ‘down there’ very forcefully and aggressively.85 76 T 87.18-20. 77 T 87.31-88.4. 78 MFIP2 at lines 591-608. 79 Ibid at line 610. 80 T 83.14-84.3. 81 MFIP2 at lines 612-632. 82 T 84.20-22. 83 MFIP2 at lines 64-69. 84 Ibid at line 280. 85 Ibid at lines 78-86, 116-118. -- 21 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 20 134 During the AM interview, AM said she was wearing green track pants and they were still on. The accused was using his entire hand to rub her vagina, in ‘really aggressive circles’, over the top of her clothing.86 She said:87 And as soon as he did I, my eyes wide open, started pushing him off me and I was like “don’t, don’t”, like ‘get off’. And he was like “just help me, just help me” and “I haven’t gotten off in God knows how long.” And he was just very persistent until I finally actually yelled at him and said “GET OFF, I don’t want” like “stop”. And then he finally got off, like kneeled down beside me and asked if he could “just touch me so he can get off”. And I said “no”, like “I’m tired, I’m going to sleep”. And he just gave up and went to his bed and I had knocked out. 135 She explained that she had yelled at the accused to get off, but ‘obviously not loudly cos obviously we’re in the backyard of his parents’ house’. After he went back to his bed, she fell asleep almost immediately as she was so tired.88 136 AM could not remember if she had had any substances before this incident but said the accused had had some weed.89 In cross-examination, AM said she could not remember what she was wearing on this occasion.90 137 The next day, she had spent some time just sitting inside his parents’ house, in the lounge room, on her phone and watching television. The accused’s parents, her dad, her cousin and her cousin’s girlfriend were there, talking. The accused had acted as if nothing had happened, ‘just like every other time’.91 She left the house when she was picked up by GM at around 2:30pm. She then chilled at home and did not say anything to anyone about what had happened.92 138 AM agreed that there was the opportunity that day for her to tell someone, at the house (for example, C, her cousin’s girlfriend) about what had happened, but she had not done so.93 86 Ibid at lines 134-174. 87 Ibid at line 88. See also lines 178-190. 88 Ibid at lines 202-222. 89 T 61.27-34. 90 T 92.33-35, noting the evidence-in-chief as to her clothing was elicited during the AM interview, more than two years prior to trial. 91 MFIP2 at line 98. 92 Ibid at lines 94-104, lines 223-236. 93 T 94.7-95.17. -- 22 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 21 139 In re-examination, when asked why she had not told anyone who was at the house, about either occasion of offending, she said:94 I was terrified and it’s his family, like would they believe that. Uncharged acts 140 During the AM interview, Officer Dawson asked AM if there was any other time she could remember when something else had happened with the accused. AM said that she knew that there had been one of two other times, but she could not remember them, as only the other two had ‘actually imprinted in my head’.95 141 These other times had occurred between the alleged offending in counts 1 and 2 and about one to two weeks apart. These occasions only involved the accused touching ‘my vagina or my boobs or something like that – and that was it.’ She could not recall any other details of these occasions, explaining that she had a chromosome deletion, was very slow and did not have a good memory.96 142 It followed from this evidence, and the evidence given by AM that she had continued to visit her father at the caravan, and stay overnight with him, in the caravan, after the alleged offending in count 1. As to why she had done this, AM said, ‘Because I had to act like everything was okay’.97 Initial complaint as to count 1 143 AM said that the first person she told about the offending was her friend, DA, and that she had told her about three to four weeks prior to the AM interview. She had met DA about six months before that. They talked quite often and hung out at least once a week.98 144 She was with DA and DA’s friend, LT, at the Tea Tree Plaza Food Court.99 Although this was the first time she had met LT, she felt comfortable enough with them to tell them and described them as being warm and welcoming, and giving off a very trusting vibe.100 They were eating lunch together (KFC) when she ‘just spilled it out’. She had told them that her dad had been touching her. She did not go into detail but had said that her dad had attempted to have sex with her.101 145 When asked why she had decided to tell then at that time, she said, ‘I just kind of got really in my head and blurted it out in all honesty.’102 94 T 103.5-6. 95 MFIP2 at lines 467-472. 96 Ibid at lines 474-478, lines 488-490, lines 567-572. 97 T 93.17. 98 T 60.28-32. 99 T 58.33. 100 T 60.35-36. 101 MFIP2 at lines 639-668, 691-708. 102 T 61.1-2. -- 23 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 22 146 AM gave evidence that she had not said anything else about what had happened at that time, ‘No, I was very vague’.103 She remembered having mixed emotions about telling them – she was relieved but also scared. She said she was very nervous, very fidgety and that she was shaking when she told them. 147 AM said that they both just went dead silent. LK gave her a hug and said, ‘I’m sorry you have to go through that’.104 He had told her that he was here for her if she ever wanted to do anything about it. DA had also messaged her that night to apologise for not knowing how to handle the situation. DA had told her that she was sorry she had to go through that and that she was always there for her if she needed her.105 148 In cross-examination, AM agreed with a proposition put to her that she had told DA (and LK) something along the lines of ‘[the accused] had either tried to force himself into me or onto me’ but had given no further details.106 Both DA and LK were present for the whole of that conversation.107 Initial complaint as to count 2 149 AM gave evidence that the first person she told about the offending in count 2 was DA and that she had done so via a series of text messages exchanged with DA.108 The text messages were in evidence.109 At the time those text messages were exchanged, DA was at the police station. AM attended at the police station later that same day and gave the prescribed interview. 150 In the messages, AM stated that something else had happened on Wednesday. She said: He basically pinned me down and was touching me. In the middle of the night. The Wednesday just passed (sic) I basically yelled at him and he got off me and begged to touch me so he could get off. 151 AM gave evidence that she had told DA about this as she had told her about the first incident and trusted her. She said that she knew that she had to tell her and it was the right thing to do.110 She said, ‘... I already knew that I would have to talk about the first incident, so I involved the second incident as well.’111 103 T 60.16. 104 MFIP2 at line 728. 105 Ibid at lines 674-678, 714-730. 106 T 95.27-32. 107 T 95.36-96.1. 108 T 64.11-23. 109 Exhibit P6. 110 T 65.14-19. 111 T 65.22-24. -- 24 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 23 Motive to lie 152 During cross-examination, AM was asked questions directed at establishing that she had a motive to lie about the alleged offending. 153 A proposition was put to AM in cross-examination that she and the accused had an argument the night before she first went shooting with BM. The accused was not happy with her as she had left school and was not working or doing anything. AM disagreed with this. She also disagreed with a proposition that the accused had been angry with her because she had been seeing her mother in breach of the Intervention Order, which had culminated in her telling the accused to ‘fuck off’. She did not remember having any argument with him that night.112 When asked if the accused had then left the caravan after the argument, and had only returned after she was already asleep, she said she did not remember.113 154 AM denied a proposition put to her that she had made up the allegations as she was angry and upset with her father about that argument.114 BM’s evidence 155 BM is AM’s maternal grandfather. He was separated from his former wife, GM, at all material times, and lived separately from both GM and AM at the time of the alleged offending and at the time of trial. 156 BM gave evidence that for a period during October and November 2022, both AM and her sister lived with him and his wife. Thereafter, AM and LS went to live with GM.115 157 BM gave evidence that he had only attended at the accused’s parents’ house on one occasion and that was the day he collected AM to take her with him to his rifle club. This was the first time she had gone with him to the club. He had encouraged her to come with him as he felt she was feeling depressed and to give her an interest in something different and to take her mind off things.116 158 BM identified the various text messages he had exchanged with AM for the purpose of this outing.117 He recalled that when he collected AM that day, he pulled into the driveway and she came out the double gates, which led to the backyard, and greeted him. He did not see anyone else with her. They then drove directly to the rifle club up North East Road.118 112 T 85.11-86.24. 113 T 86.35-87.1. 114 T 99.32-100.6. 115 T 105.36-106.5; T 106.27-38. 116 T 107.9-30. 117 Exhibit P5. 118 T 108.23-31. -- 25 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 24 159 BM described AM as being excited about going and happy to be going with him.119 160 BM’s recollection was that he collected AM at about 8:30am and that they left the firing range at about 11:00am. He then drove her straight back to GM’s house. They had not gone out for lunch on that occasion, although he had taken her out for lunch at a bakery on other occasions.120 GM’s evidence 161 GM is AM’s maternal grandmother. She recalled a time when the accused was living in a caravan at his parents’ house. She thought that was about two to three years ago. At that time, AM and LS were living with her and the accused would visit her house every couple of weeks, or once a month, to see them.121 162 GM gave evidence of her observations of the accused during those visits. She described him as spending about an hour at the house when he visited. He would chat with AM ‘out the back’ and would chat with LS inside.122 163 GM also described the accused and LS as having ‘a bit of a play fight. Like a little boxing sort of fight’.123 This would occur when the accused and LS were both on the lounge room floor and they would muck around and play fight together for about five to 10 minutes. She said the accused had hurt his back, so he would be half lying on the floor and LS would be sitting next to him.124 He did appear to be in a little bit of discomfort with his back, when playfighting with LS.125 164 GM was asked how the accused was then able to get up off the floor. She described him as pushing himself up off the floor or he would use the couch to get up, by putting his hand or hands on the couch. Sometimes, when his back was sore, he would need assistance to get up off the floor and LS would help him. She thought this had occurred over a period of about two to three months, being when he had hurt his back. She did not recall him needing such assistance the last time he had visited, which was about a week or two before he was arrested.126 165 GM gave evidence that the accused would usually get to her house on his motorbike. She recalled he needed a stick to walk around for a period of about a month or two, a couple of months after he moved into the caravan. At that time, he would use the stick most of the time to help him get up off the ground. She had observed him doing this two or three times.127 119 T 109.20-21. 120 T 109.25-110.15. 121 T 154.32-155.33. 122 T 155.34-156.4. 123 T 156.6-7. 124 T 156.10-25. 125 T 157.31-33. 126 T 156.26-157.21. 127 T 157.29-158.14; T 159.14-17. -- 26 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 25 Complaint Evidence DA’s evidence 166 DA was 18 at the time she gave evidence and studying Year 12 at high school. She gave evidence that she knew AM through mutual friends and they went to the same school. They were in different year levels.128 167 DA gave evidence that she first had contact with AM in about June or July 2023. She had contacted AM via Instagram and they had then hung out together in person. They would go to the shops and contact each other pretty regularly via Instagram chats.129 168 DA recalled going away to the Whitsundays with her mother for the weekend to celebrate her 16th birthday in July 2023. When she returned, she also celebrated her birthday with AM by going together to Tea Tree Plaza. She had an express recollection of this occasion being on 21 July 2023, albeit she clarified this to say, ‘[i]t was close to my birthday, around that time’.130 169 DA remembered walking around the shops with AM and then sitting down to have KFC for lunch in the Food Court and talking together about the food and how the day was going. As to the tone of the conversation, she said, ‘[i]t was really good. We were all happy. AM was happy’.131 All of a sudden, AM said, ‘My dad sexually assaulted me’. This comment had come out of nowhere, in the sense that they had not been talking about sexual assault as a topic of conversation.132 AM did not say anything more about that and the conversation ended. She described AM as appearing more open after she had said this. She said, ‘she seemed relieved to tell someone.’133 AM was not crying or upset.134 170 Later, in cross-examination, DA mentioned for the first time that LT was also with them at Tea Tree Plaza, during that conversation.135 171 DA gave evidence that in the weeks thereafter, she and AM continued to contact each other and she would see AM once a week. AM would talk with her about having gone to her dad’s or about plans to go to her dad’s but did not say anything more to her about the alleged offending.136 172 On Wednesday 9 August 2023, she and AM caught up in person at The Grove Shopping Centre and then went together to the Elizabeth Shopping Centre, where they also met AM’s cousin. They stayed there until around 4:30pm, at which time 128 T 111.25-112.19. 129 T 112.20-113.2. 130 T 113.10-28. 131 T 114.12-13. 132 T 120.20-26. 133 T 113.31-114.34. 134 T 121.19-23. 135 T 122.14-23. 136 T 115.4-25. -- 27 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 26 AM left to go and see her dad. She contacted AM the next day and asked her how the visit with her dad went. AM had told her ‘it went well’.137 173 In cross examination, DA agreed with a proposition put to her that at that time, AM had said that the visit was fine and nothing had happened, and that she (DA) was glad that nothing had happened.138 174 DA gave evidence that the next day, Friday 11 August 2023, she attended at the Elizabeth Police Station to talk to the police about what AM had told her about being sexually assaulted by her dad. She had done this as her mother had suggested this, not because of anything AM had told her the day earlier.139 While she was there, she had a communication with AM over Snapchat.140 175 DA was asked whether AM had told her any further details about the alleged offending between the discussion at the Tea Tree Plaza Food Court and the day she had gone to the police station (11 August 2023). DA said she recalled having a conversation in person with AM when it was just the two of them, at which time AM told her that she was in bed and that her father had got on top of her and tried to have sex with her. She had also told her that the next morning it really hurt when she tried to go to the toilet. DA believed this conversation may have occurred at GM’s house, maybe in the kitchen, about three weeks after the conversation at Tea Tree Plaza.141 176 She described AM as, again, appearing more open in her body language and relieved because she could tell someone what had happened.142 AM was not crying when telling her this.143 LT’s evidence 177 LT gave evidence that he was 17 years old and was currently working for an Engineering company.144 He said he first met AM on 21 July 2023, at which time they were at Tea Tree Plaza with his friend, DA. He remembered walking around for a bit and then getting KFC from the Food Court.145 178 As they were sitting, eating and talking, AM brought up that there was something that she wanted to speak with them about. She then told them that her father had sexually assaulted her. 179 LT was ‘extremely’ confident that that AM described this as having occurred multiple times, but the most recent time as being within a week of her telling 137 T 115.26-117.8. 138 T 119.24-36. 139 T 120.7-13. 140 T 117.9-38; Exhibit P6. 141 T 118.1-37; T 122.2-4. 142 T 119.3-10. 143 T 122.9-11. 144 T 124.18-24. 145 T 124.30-125.17. -- 28 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 27 them.146 She had said this had happened at her dad’s house.147 He could not remember her telling them anything else about what had happened.148 180 LT described AM as appearing fairly tense, anxious and nervous during this conversation.149 Police evidence Officer Davis 181 Evidence was called from Officer Davis on several topics relating to the arrest of the accused and the investigation generally. 182 In addition, a statement of agreed facts was tendered which incorporated undisputed evidence that would otherwise have been given by Senior Constable Eriksen (Officer Eriksen), relevant to the extraction of data found on the accused’s Samsung mobile phone.150 183 Officer Davis gave evidence that he was involved in the accused’s arrest, which had occurred on 11 August 2023 at around 10:40pm. At that time, the accused had a walking stick with him, which he was using. He said, ‘[h]e could move unassisted, but, however, did appear to have some discomfort, yes’.151 184 At the time of his arrest, the accused had two mobile phones in his possession, namely a Samsung mobile phone found in his pocket152 and an Oppo device found in the caravan. 153 Both mobile phones were seized by the police.154 185 These mobile phones were lodged into the police property system and later submitted to the Digital Evidence Section for data extraction and analysis.155 Nothing of relevance was found on the Oppo mobile phone.156 186 However, there was relevant material found on the Samsung mobile phone (the phone).157 187 The contents of the phone were extracted by Officer Eriksen and made available to Officer Davis to review. He then ‘tagged’ certain items. Later, Officer Eriksen extracted the tagged data and made it available to Officer Davis on a 146 T 125.20-35. 147 T 125.36-126.2. 148 T 126.3-19. 149 T 126.20-22. 150 Exhibit P14. 151 T 130.17-22; T146.2-10. 152 T 131.3; SAP2300198568, Item 1; PE0001; Exhibit P14 at [1]. It was an agreed fact that the accused was the owner and only user of that device and that the device ‘commenced being used around 22 July 2022’; Exhibit P14 at [7]-[9]. 153 T 131.29-30; SAP2300198568, Item 4; PE0004. 154 T 130.23-131.31. 155 Exhibit P14 at [2]. 156 T 131.33-132.12. 157 T 132.13-137.14. -- 29 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 28 disc.158 The material on that disc was presented to the Court in several different forms, namely: • a schedule containing relevant data extracted from an ‘Autofill’ folder;159 • an enlarged copy of an image entitled ‘Dad plays with Teen Daughter’ (No.35, File name 419);160 • a schedule containing relevant search results from the phone’s web history for the period 6 to 10 August 2023 (Annexure F);161 • a schedule identifying searches using the key word ‘dad’;162 • a schedule identifying searches using the key word ‘daughter’;163 and • a schedule identifying searches using the key word ‘family’.164 188 Officer Davis confirmed that all of the pornography found on the phone was legal adult pornography. No child exploitation material was located. The material before the Court did not include all of the material found on the phone, only material considered relevant to the investigation. There was other adult pornography found on the phone and evidence that the accused had searched for other adult pornography during the period 6 to 10 August 2023.165 189 By way of example, Exhibit P9 did not contain all of the Autofill results from the phone. There were another 252 further results not included on that schedule.166 190 Officer Davis also gave evidence that as part of the investigation, he endeavoured to speak to the accused’s father, mother and brother, but they had all declined to assist or to provide a statement.167 Relevant data extracted from the Phone General 191 Exhibit P14 contains a list of agreed facts to assist the Court to interpret and understand the various schedules produced from relevant material extracted from the phone. I will only refer to those agreed facts insofar as it is necessary for me to 158 Exhibit P14 at [3]-[5]. 159 Exhibit P7. 160 Exhibit P8. 161 Exhibit P9. 162 Exhibit P10. 163 Exhibit P11. 164 Exhibit P12. 165 T 138.4-140.35. 166 T 146.20-147.4. 167 T 137.18-29. -- 30 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 29 explain that material and/or to understand the evidence given by the accused (see below) relating to that material. Some of that material speaks for itself. Exhibit P7 192 From this schedule, it is apparent that between 4:07am and 4:25am on 23 March 2023, the accused accessed the hardcore pornographic website, ‘Heavy- R.com’, using a Google Chrome Browser and entered the following search terms in the search bar for that website:168 • daughter tricked; • tricked; • daughter forced; • daddy; • daddy caught daughter; • drunk mom; • sleepy daughter; • daughter molested; • tiny young; • daughter blackmail; • family; and • forced. Exhibit P8 193 The image depicted in Exhibit P8 was found in a file path, on the phone. The file path indicates that the user (the accused) used Google Chrome to open a website containing this image on 23 March 2023. The image contains the watermark, ‘more at heavy-r.com’, from which it can be inferred the image came from that website.169 194 A still screenshot of the image, entitled ‘Dad Plays with Teen Daughter’ depicts a naked woman, lying on her back with her legs spread. At the bottom of the screenshot there is relevant information including ‘Uploader Info’ and several ‘tags’, likely included on the video by the person who uploaded it. ‘Tags’ are explicit content labels used to categorise videos by theme, genre or specific acts, 168 Exhibit P14 at [20]-[21]. 169 Exhibit P14 at [25]-[32]. -- 31 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 30 to make it easier for users to find similar content. The tags on this screenshot included ‘incest’, ‘daddy’, ‘dad’, ‘daughter’, ‘family’, ‘old’, ‘taboo’, ‘babe’, ‘fantasy’, ‘caught’, ‘buted’, ‘ride’ and ‘small tits’.170 Exhibits P9 to P12 195 These documents were created from the Web History on the phone which contains a record of the websites accessed on the device.171 196 After a period of 90 days, the search history for Google Chrome and Samsung Internet Browser may be automatically deleted in certain circumstances. Similarly, the user can delete some of their search history, however it cannot be determined if this has been done at any point in time.172 197 On each schedule, the ‘URL’ is the web address which was the subject of the search. Those websites included ‘xvideos’ and ‘Pornhub’. 198 Between 6 and 10 August 2023, the accused accessed web pages on ‘Pornhub’ including those entitled:173 • Teen Moans when Daddy Fucks her on the Couch; • Daddy’s Little Slut Porn Videos; • Daddy’s Little Princess Porn Videos; • Fuck me Daddy Porn Videos; • Divorced Dad Porn Videos; and • POV: Daddy Fucks me before Work – Erotic Audio. 199 Search terms used by the accused while accessing the Pornhub website included:174 • ‘yes+daddy+fuck+me+daddy’; • ‘wake+up+daddy’; • ‘dad+and+daughter+share+bed’; • ‘stop+your+my+daddy’; 170 Ibid at [34]-[35]. 171 Ibid at [36]-[37]. 172 Ibid at [38]-[39]. 173 Exhibit P9, this is a sample only. 174 Exhibit P10, this is a sample only. -- 32 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 31 • ‘daughters+first+time’;175 • ‘vergin+daughter’;176 and • ‘waking+up+daughter’.177 Text Message - ‘Possible Work Adam’ 200 On 18 June 2023 at 7:24am, the accused sent a text message to a contact described as ‘Possible Work Adam’ in the following terms:178 hey mate, recovery is going okay, slowly getting there. im able to walk around unaided which is a great improvement. how you been going? Accused’s evidence Background 201 The accused was 37 at the time of trial and 35 at the time of the alleged offending (DOB:11 January 1987).179 He is AM’s biological father.180 202 The accused was living alone in a rented caravan in the backyard of his parents’ house, at the time of the alleged offending. He lived there from about March 2023 until his arrest on 11 August 2023.181 203 The accused was not working at the time of the alleged offending. He gave evidence that after he left school in Year 10, he obtained work in an abattoir and then as a butcher, initially at Woolworths. He was not working at the time of the alleged offending, having sustained an injury to his back about six months earlier, when working as a medical supply courier. This injury exacerbated what was a longstanding back injury, first sustained when he was hit by a car when he was in Year 8.182 Back Injury/Mobility 204 The accused gave evidence that as at June 2023, he struggled to move around or to stand straight. He was using a walking stick constantly to move about and had stayed in bed for days at a time. He described experiencing sharp, stabbing pain travelling up to the base of his neck and down both legs, such that his legs would go numb and sometimes collapse. He recalled being hospitalised overnight 175 Exhibit P11 at p 2. 176 Ibid at p 3. 177 Ibid. 178 Exhibit P14 at [49]. 179 Exhibit P13 at [2]. 180 Ibid at [3]. 181 T 172.5-18. 182 T 163.38-165.32. -- 33 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 32 in the Emergency Section at the Modbury Hospital after one such occasion in about May 2023.183 205 The accused gave evidence-in-chief that he was not seeing a doctor or specialist about his back because he had trouble getting anywhere.184 However, he later gave evidence that he went to the Modbury Medical Centre a few times after his emergency hospital admission, just to get pain relief. He did not have a regular GP and would see whoever was first available.185 206 In cross-examination, the accused said he thought he went to the Modbury Medical Centre twice for pain relief medication. The first time, about a week or two before the date of the first alleged offence, they gave him Panadeine Forte and the second time they gave him something stronger. The Panadeine Forte provided some pain relief insofar as it allowed him to get out of bed and socialise a bit more. He would take it in the morning and lunch time but not at night as it caused him constipation.186 207 The accused gave evidence that he was on paracetamol and an anti- inflammatory, for his back pain, up until the date of his arrest.187 In cross- examination, he said he would see a GP to get paracetamol (being separate to his attendances at the Modbury Medical Centre).188 208 The accused gave evidence that he was also self-medicating, having started smoking marijuana ‘again’ in about the end of May 2023, having last used cannabis about eight (or eight and a half) years before then. 189 209 In cross-examination, the accused gave evidence that as at 9 August 2023, he was using, on average, about one to two joints a day, maybe three if his back was really bad. This relaxed the muscles in his back and helped him to fall asleep.190 210 The accused agreed that cannabis was effective in helping to alleviate his pain. However, he then denied there had been any improvement in his pain levels after he started using cannabis in May 2023. He explained that he only ever used cannabis at night, to help him sleep, and never during the day, when he would only use pain medication and anti-inflammatories. He said he ‘tried to grin and bear it as much is (sic) as I could during the day’.191 211 The accused said that as at June 2023, he could walk with the aid of a walking stick and he was only able to get up and down from a chair if he had something to help lever him up (such as the arms of the chair), or a rail, or someone helping him. 183 T 165.37-166.22. No medical records were in evidence from the Modbury Hospital. 184 T 167.1-3. 185 T 167.20-168.4. 186 T 221.32-222.32. 187 T 168.5-12. 188 T 222.36-223.2. 189 T 166.23-38; T 216.13-21. 190 T 218.27-34. 191 T 218.35-220.2. -- 34 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 33 Throughout June, July and August 2023, he described still being in quite a lot of pain, with numbness in his left leg, and said that general pain would stop him moving.192 Later he said, that the marijuana helped ease off the pain but did not help mobility wise.193 212 The accused gave evidence that on ‘good days’ he would go and visit AM and LS at GM’s house. LS (then aged 8) was quite small and he was unable to bend down to pick her up, so instead he would get down on the floor to play with her. He would get LS to punch his hands while he was lying on his side on the floor. If she missed, he would reach under her arm and tickle her. At other times, he would make a hand like a spider and chase her with his hand and try to grab her. That was the extent of their ‘play fighting’. He would get back up off the floor by using the couch, or his walking stick, or getting LS to help him. 194 213 In cross-examination, the accused said that his ‘good days’ were rare, even after he started taking Panadeine Forte. The Panadeine Forte provided comfort insofar as it removed the sharp stabbing pain from his neck to his feet but he still had limited sideways movement and could not lean forward. On his good days, he still needed the walking stick but had less flinching and less cramping in his back.195 214 The accused denied that there were occasions when he was living in the caravan when he was able to walk around without using his cane. He said he used the stick every day. 196 215 During examination-in-chief, the accused was asked if he was able to kneel during June to August 2023. He said, ‘[w]ith effort I could probably do it’,197 but said he did not commonly do that as he had difficulty placing any weight on his left leg.198 In cross-examination, he disagreed that he was capable of kneeling as at August 2023. He gave the following evidence:199 Q. You don't agree on that at all now. A. I didn't agree to that before, did I? Q. You said yesterday you were capable of kneeling but you said 'not without difficulty'. Do you accept that you said that yesterday. A. Okay then, yeah, I could probably do it. But not without difficulty. Q. So you could kneel down but it was just a bit difficult to do that. 192 T 168.36-38. 193 T 171.22-26. 194 T 169.14-171.1. 195 T 223.20-224.10. 196 T 226.4-13. 197 T 171.4. 198 T 171.5-16. 199 T 295.36-296.18. -- 35 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 34 A. More than a bit but, yes. Q. So it might have caused you some pain, do you accept that. A. Definitely. Q. But you could have got up from the kneeling position using any furniture that you had around you. A. Possibly. Q. The bed. A. Yeah. Q. You could have pushed up off the bed and got back to a standing position. A. I suppose. 216 The accused gave evidence that at the time of his arrest, he was still using his walking stick and struggling to walk without it. His mobility was about the same as it had been in June. He was still struggling to get up off the ground and could not get up from a kneeling position without difficulty.200 217 He denied that he was deliberately exaggerating the extent of his back problem for the purposes of defending the charges.201 Relationship with AM 218 The accused gave evidence that AM came to visit him at the caravan on a regular basis. She would see him most Wednesdays and most weekends.202 219 There were no formal arrangements put in place about this – this was left up to AM. This would be arranged via text message, or she would ring him, or they would talk about it when she saw him.203 He never placed any pressure on her to visit him or get angry if she did not come to visit.204 220 When asked to describe his relationship with AM during the period he was living in the caravan, the accused said:205 A. Normal. I mean I'm pretty sure I was more friends than father. Q. What do you mean by that. 200 T 194.22-195.4. 201 T 305.33-35. 202 T 184.3-12. 203 T 183.18-34. 204 T 186.13-187.2. 205 T 184.34-185.6. -- 36 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 35 A. So because I didn't see her up until she was six, I felt really guilty about all that so I'm trying to make it up ever since really, so I would let her get away with anything she wanted, if she wanted something I would get it for her, could never say no. Q. Do you mean that you were the type of father who would spoil - A. Definitely. 221 He described taking her to the shops, out on day trips such as to the Rocking Horse with LS, trips to the movies and ‘out to dinner almost every weekend if we could’.206 222 In cross-examination, the accused explained that there were still occasions when he was in parent mode with AM when he needed to be strict about things and gave as an example an occasion when he chastised AM from smoking in front of him at GM’s house when she was 16.207 223 He explained that what he meant when he said he was more of a friend to AM than a parent, was that he was not a ‘helicopter parent’ always hovering over her and controlling what she did.208 He agreed he would still ask her questions about her personal life such as about school or her friends. He had told when he had a new girlfriend and AM was keen to meet her. AM had shared with him that there was a girl in class that she liked.209 224 He assumed AM was a virgin but that was not a topic they had discussed.210 Caravan/House 225 When AM came to visit him, occasionally she would stay overnight in the caravan with him. He agreed that she would sleep on the couch AM identified in her evidence. 226 During examination-in-chief, the accused gave evidence that he had never slept on that couch, as it was quite small and narrow, probably only the width of one and a half or two of his hands.211 When shown photographs of the couch in cross-examination, he described the couch as being the same width as a pillow. 212 When asked if the couch was wide enough for him to fit on it, on top of AM he said, ‘Potentially, a bit of a squeeze, but potentially’.213 206 T 185.8-11. 207 T 227.33-228.17. 208 T 229.16-19. 209 T 229.20-230.12. 210 T 230.23-32; T 309.27-310.2. 211 T 176.3-27. 212 T 307.7-10. 213 T 307.13. -- 37 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 36 227 The accused described the couch as being too small for him to sit upright on it. He had never lay down on the couch as it was too short.214 He said:215 A. It's quite small. Lengthwise and width. With my back, I wouldn't even be able to sit on it normally because I have to lean and it just wouldn't fit me, especially not to lay on. 228 In cross-examination, when asked if there was enough room for him to climb on top of AM on that couch, he said:216 A. Maybe, it would be a very big squeeze, but maybe. Where her pillow is located you could probably only move back another, I don't know, inch or two until it hits the cupboard that's down there. There's like an armrest couch, armrest cupboard down there. Q. But you said you could potentially fit on top of Amber and both of you be on this couch at the same time. A. I'd pretty much be on her legs, if that was the case. Q. What do you mean by that. A. Well because, so where her pillow is, her feet would almost touch that cupboard when she laid there, if she stretched out. Q. But enough room for you to be able to climb on top of her potentially. A. Maybe, I think I'd have to probably keep a leg on the ground or something. 229 He denied the couch was long enough for him to be able to lie on top of AM. He said:217 A. I can't even lay on this couch. I wouldn't fit laying on this couch, from end to end I wouldn't fit on it, my legs would be hanging over, almost to the actual door. 230 The accused acknowledged that he may have been able to sit on top of her but maintained there was insufficient room for him to lie on top of her. He disagreed with a proposition that he was exaggerating his evidence about the width and length of the couch in order to defend the charges.218 231 The accused gave evidence that he slept on the bed at the opposite end of the caravan, using a pregnancy pillow to stop him from rolling onto his back. He was still using that pillow to sleep between June to August 2023.219 232 The accused gave evidence that while he was living in the caravan, his parents, his brother, his nephew and his nephew’s girlfriend were all living in the 214 T 176.34-177.3. 215 T 176.13-16. 216 T 307.36-308.13. 217 T 308.21-23. 218 T 308.24-309.26. 219 T 174.11-37. -- 38 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 37 house.220 The house had three bedrooms and a lounge room with a couch long enough for him to lie on. The back door of the house would always be left open so he could use the toilet.221 233 The accused gave evidence that the caravan was right on the back corner of the house, only about two to three metres away from his brother’s bedroom window. His brother always kept his bedroom window open. 222 As to why, he said:223 A. He runs hot like I do, we both tend to like the cold because we get overheated very easily. 234 The accused said that if he was in the caravan, he could hear what people were doing in his brother’s room. He described lying on his bed in the caravan and calling out to his brother, in the house, and carrying on a conversation with him. He could still hear his brother call out from the house, even if the caravan door was shut (as it was at night). He described several occasions when his brother had yelled out to him, from inside the house, to tell him to roll over because he was snoring.224 Argument with AM 235 The accused gave evidence that he and AM rarely fought, however he recalled an argument they had, the day before she first went shooting with BM.225 236 The accused said the argument would have been after 5:00pm, as AM only arrived at the house about 4:00pm. When asked how the argument started, the accused gave the following evidence:226 A. I was a bit down that day, I was like a bit like depressed and she asked me what was wrong, and I was a bit upset because I had dropped out of school and all that stuff myself and I had found out that she had stopped working herself without giving notice. She just stopped rocking up. She was working at Macca's. And I got a bit upset because I didn't want her to end up like me and she needed to find a career or go back to study. Q. Were you cross when you said that to her. 237 He said he was not cross at first, but he was upset and using a voice a little louder than usual. He became cross when she had said to him ‘Well nana doesn’t 220 T 172.24-37. 221 T 173.2-174.2. 222 T 177.27-178.36; T 179.12-25. 223 T 178.38-179.1. 224 T 179.35-180.10. 225 T 187.3-12. 226 T 187.22-30. -- 39 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 38 make me do anything’ and then yelled at him to ‘fuck off’.227 The whole argument lasted maybe 10 or 15 minutes.228 238 He said that he then got up, left the caravan and went outside for a little while. He said:229 A. That was the end of the topic for that day. Yeah, I sat outside, had a cigarette outside and then I did some laps up and down my parents' backyard. 239 He then explained that he had ‘hobbled around’, up and down his parents’ backyard, using his walking stick.230 He went onto say that this was his father’s walking stick. He had previously broken another walking stick when he had fallen over getting out of bed and his leg had collapsed beneath him.231 240 He said after walking around for about 10 minutes he sat down on a chair in the shed. AM stayed in the caravan. About an hour and a half or two hours later he went back into the caravan, at which time she was sleeping on the couch.232 He turned the main caravan light off, said goodnight to her and turned on the night light. He lay on his bed and watched YouTube. At some stage he went to sleep. The next thing he knew, it was morning and his father was banging on the caravan door.233 241 The accused described AM as being excited to go shooting. She helped him down the caravan step, gave him a hug and then ran through the house. He went to the gate to wave goodbye.234 242 Later that same night, AM called him to let him know how it had gone and asked if she could stay on the Friday. She had returned to see and stay with him at the caravan two days later, on the Friday and Saturday night.235 She had continued to visit and stay with him thereafter, until his arrest, with the same frequency as before.236 Denial of alleged offending 243 The accused denied ever touching AM on the vagina or trying to put his penis in her vagina. He denied ever taking the bottom half of her clothes off at any time when they were in the caravan or at any time.237 227 T 187.30-188.17. 228 T 188.10. 229 T 188.23-25. 230 T 188.26-33. 231 T 189.2-36. 232 T 190.4-32. 233 T 191.6-192.28. 234 T 191.32-192.2. 235 T 192.6-193.3, noting that AM was not questioned about this during her evidence. 236 T 193.7-194.12. 237 T 186.3-12. -- 40 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 39 244 He said that when AM was 17, he would give her a hug and kiss her on the top of her head but denied ever touching her in an inappropriate manner. He denied ever speaking to AM about sexual matters.238 AM’s cannabis use 245 During examination-in-chief, the accused was questioned about what he knew of AM’s use of cannabis. 246 The accused gave evidence that he would store his cannabis in a cupboard and would use a little bowl to roll it into joints. He said that when AM was 17, he had seen her help herself to his cannabis and roll her own joints. Sometimes he would also be smoking cannabis at the same time she did this. He estimated that they would have smoked cannabis together around six to seven times, when he was living in the caravan.239 They would smoke joints, rather than use a bong.240 247 However, the accused denied ever directly giving AM cannabis or pressuring her to smoke cannabis. He had no recollection of ever seeing AM smoking a bong at his parents’ house. He acknowledged that his parents would smoke cannabis during the period June to August 2023.241 Pornography addiction 248 The accused gave evidence that he had two phones, one he kept in the caravan and used for gaming (an Oppo phone) and one he had for everyday use (the Samsung phone). He could not remember when he bought the Samsung phone but he thought he had that phone for the whole of 2023. 242 249 The accused said he used the Samsung phone to access pornography. He described having an addiction to pornography, where he would watch it or listen to it constantly.243 As to what he would watch, he said, ‘After I lost my job everything and anything. It was quite a lot.’244 He would be using pornography at least three or four days a week from the time he stopped work until his arrest, watching a couple of hours a day. His addiction got worse in the four to five months before his arrest.245 He had not realised this was such an issue for him until after his arrest.246 250 In cross-examination, the accused described being stuck in the caravan (and in bed) for days on end because of his back pain, which had impacted his mental 238 T 185.32-186.2. 239 T 216.34-217.13, noting AM was not questioned about any such occasions. 240 T 217.37-218.1. 241 T 216.22-33. 242 T 195.5-31; T 195.35-196.3. 243 T 195.32-34; T 196.4-7; T 196.13-18. 244 T 196.10-11. 245 T 198.22-199.15. 246 T 200.9-23. -- 41 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 40 health and caused him to become depressed. It was in that context that he ‘dove into porn.’247 251 He acknowledged that he had become depressed associated with being stuck in the caravan due to back pain. The back pain had an effect on both his social life and his love life. He was not dating anyone at the time of the alleged offending, or before but said ‘before my back was injured I had two friends with benefits’.248 He later named one of those friends with benefits as Kate, who he claimed visited him in the caravan after he had injured his back but had not engaged in sexual activity with him at that time.249 252 Later, during cross-examination, he said he thought that he and Kate may have fooled around in the car (not the caravan) maybe a few weeks after he moved into the caravan, so around early April 2023. He said they were rubbing each other, over their pants. He said he did not engage in sexual activity thereafter, with anyone, up to his arrest.250 253 He agreed that he had used porn as a substitute for physical connections with other people and for physical intimacy.251 He agreed he found pornography sexually arousing and that he would self-gratify in relation to it the majority of times he was using it.252 254 The accused gave evidence that he would mainly use Pornhub but also browsed other websites. When he opened Pornhub, he would either go to ‘top rated’ or ‘most recently viewed’ or he would go to other categories. As to which other categories, he said ‘pretty much everything’ but that he preferred ‘nuru massage’ videos. He would use the search bar within the website to search for certain categories of material or press a ‘category button’ which would come up with different genres of pornography.253 Sometimes he would listen to pornography (ASMR) when he was playing a video game, as he found it soothing and calming.254 255 He denied ever using the Pornhub search bar to look for videos relating to children or teenagers.255 Pornography searches 256 The accused acknowledged that he was not just searching for pornography but actively watching it and listening to it.256 247 T 236.5-237.27. 248 T 238.2-3. 249 T 253.28-29; T 258.13-30. 250 T 291.11-292.5. 251 T 237.8-238.10. 252 T 238.11-238.17. See also evidence in cross-examination at T 292.6-25. 253 T 196.19-198.4. 254 T 199.18-200.8. 255 T 198.5-10. 256 T 239.29-32. -- 42 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 41 257 One of the genres of pornography that he looked at ‘quite a bit’ involved the theme ‘daddy’.257 He would watch a wide variety of videos with the ‘daddy’ theme and would specifically search by category for such pornography, using terms such as ‘step-daddy’ and ‘daddy tricked’.258 He estimated that of the various types of pornography he would watch, the majority, 60-70% fell into the ‘daddy’ or ‘step- daddy’ category.259 258 When asked during examination-in-chief, why he watched this type of pornography, the accused explained that about a year or two before his arrest, he had an ‘ex’ who used to call him ‘daddy’.260 He did not name that ‘ex’. 259 In cross-examination, the accused said, ‘Kate, and a few of my exes used to call me “Daddy”’.261 He said Kate would call him ‘daddy’ when they were fooling around sexually. He explained that the term ‘daddy’ was used in porn and sexually in a way that did not mean ‘father’.262 He had searched pornography websites using the term ‘dad’, as well as ‘daddy’, because the content fell ‘into the same category as daddy porn. It’s the same tag’.263 He explained that if you searched for this type of pornography, it showed people being called ‘daddy’ and that he was listening for that, because that’s what his exes used to call him.264 260 When asked whether he thought it was weird when his ‘ex’ started calling him daddy, he said for the first few times, he thought it was odd. He said:265 A. I questioned her. This is going back, I don't know how many years, and she said that it has different meanings now. She even Googled it and showed me that it can mean different things now and I was like 'Okay', just sort of accepted it. It's like a nickname, like 'babe' or 'honey'. Q. When she showed you what it meant, what was the definition that came up of 'daddy'. A. It was a long time ago that she showed me, but it was things, like I said, 'rugged', 'handsome', 'protector', 'charismatic', 'dominant', yeah. 261 However, when asked during examination-in-chief, why he had a particular interest ‘daddy’ pornography, he said:266 A. In some cases it was more the porn stars in it. There's a few regulars that, you know, that I suppose you could say there's a few regular porn stars that I like to watch. And other times it was, just, yeah, that was just what I was searching or had previously searched so I went to previous. 257 T 201.20; T 201.31. 258 T 201.32-202.8. 259 T 202.28-30. 260 T 201.21-28. 261 T 261.29-30. 262 T 267.38-268.12. 263 T 269.13-14. 264 T 271.24-29. 265 T 271.36-272.8. 266 T 202.33-38. -- 43 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 42 262 Those particular adult female porn stars did not have any physical similarity. None, in appearance, seemed to be teenagers.267 263 He denied that he had any sexual interest in AM and denied he had watched (or listened to) this genre of pornography because he had a sexual interest in her.268 He denied ever acting out in real life with AM anything he had seen in such pornography.269 264 The accused acknowledged that he had also conducted searches within pornography websites using the word ‘daughter’. As to why, he said:270 A. Same as the 'daddy' thing, it brings you to like 'stepdaughter' or similar things like that. Q. Did you have a particular interest in looking for material involving daughters or stepdaughters. A. Step yes, not daughter stuff. I don't watch incest porn. 265 In cross-examination, when explaining why he specifically searched using the term ‘daughter’, the accused gave evidence that if you searched under the terms ‘daughter’ or ‘stepdaughter’, most of the time it would produce the same results as to content. He said the ‘tags’ of ‘dad’, ‘daddy’, ‘daughter’ and ‘stepdaughter’ were usually linked together, but not always, hence why he had searched using both the terms ‘daughter’ and ‘stepdaughter’. 271 When asked what searching for ‘daughter’ would show, if that tag was not linked to ‘stepdaughter’ the accused said:272 A. It's still the same sort of videos, actors and actresses, playing the role of usually stepparents and stuff like that. It just gives you sometimes different videos depending on the tags. Q. So if you type in 'Daughter' it's going to show pornography between father and daughter, isn't it. A. Stepfather usually, yes. 266 The accused acknowledged, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that simply searching using the term ‘daughter’ may produce content relating to sexual activity/sexual role play between fathers and daughters and that was the very reason why someone might search using that specific term. However, he denied that was why he had used the search term ‘daughter’. He emphasised that these people were actors – not actually fathers and daughters – meaning he was not actually viewing ‘incest porn’.273 267 T 203.1-20. 268 T 202.9-11; T 205.30-33; T 211.4-7. 269 T 211.8-10. 270 T 204.14-19. 271 T 261.36-262.20. 272 T 262.24-30. 273 T 263.9-264.2. -- 44 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 43 267 The accused had searched for pornography using the search term ‘stepdaughter’. On 4 March 2023, he conducted a searched using the term ‘stepdaughter tied’. He said he was looking for a certain bondage specifically involving stepdaughters.274 He had also specifically searched using the term daughter, for example, a search on 23 March 2023 using the term ‘daughter molested’. When it was suggested to him that he had done this as he was specifically seeking out content depicting sexual activity between a father and daughter, he said:275 A. I just searched 'Daughter', I guess I was lazy, to be honest, I was probably typing with one hand. Q. Were you typing with one hand. A. Most likely if I've already been searching stuff, that's most likely. Q. Is that your explanation for every time that you typed 'Daughter' instead of 'Stepdaughter'. A. No. Q. Sometimes you did type 'Daughter' deliberately. A. Yeah, for the same reason that I mentioned. Q. That you wanted to look at father and daughter porn. A. No, I was looking for step porn but it's just lazier and quicker and. 268 The accused acknowledged that the image depicted in Exhibit P8 (entitled ‘Dad plays with Teen Daughter’) came to be on his phone because he took a screenshot of it. As to why he would take a screenshot of that image, he offered two possible explanations. He said it may have been a mistake because of the sensitivity of the Samsung phone which meant if you put your finger flat on it and moved it just a tiny bit, it would automatically take a screenshot. The other potential (and likely) reason was that he saved it so he could remember the name of the website ‘Heavy-r’ which appeared in the bottom right-hand corner of the image. This was a website that had been recommended to him by someone else, later identified as his friend Jake.276 269 The accused denied having any sexual attraction to teenagers and denied that the actress in that video looked like a teenager.277 274 T 264.3-265.2; Exhibit P7 at p 1. 275 T 265.23-35. 276 T 205.2-25; T 239.36-241.11. 277 T 211.11-18. -- 45 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 44 270 The accused gave evidence that this website had been recommended to him as it was more extreme and less vanilla. He used that website to search for pornography mainly via categories, although he also used the search bar.278 271 The accused acknowledged that at the relevant time he was using the Heavy- R.com website, he had read the homepage which included the following words:279 Strap on your latex suit, put on your gas mask, and get ready for action. HEAVY-R is here to please your mind and balls with the most disgusting and mind-boggling fetish porn you want and need. Many people signed up before you and uploaded their kinky videos. So what are you waiting for? Use your free hand to sign up, contribute and help us build the biggest collection of pornographic filth the internet has ever seen. 272 The accused gave evidence that he had watched the video in the image in Exhibit P8. He denied that he did so because of any sexual attraction to AM. Rather, he said he watched it because the male actor in that video was one of the regular male actors he liked to watch. He explained that you could search via the ‘star’ category for actors you wanted to see. There would be a thumbnail (small photo) of their face, so you would know who they were. He did not recall the name of this particular male actor but said that he came across this video because he was in it.280 He liked watching videos featuring this actor because he tended to do videos with ‘squirters’. He liked to watch videos with (any) actresses who were ‘squirters’.281 273 In cross-examination, the accused said he had watched over 50 of that male actor’s videos, which he would find by recognising his face in the star category.282 274 The accused acknowledged that a way to search for that same video (Exhibit P8) was to use the tag lines, depicted at the bottom of the image, including ‘incest’, ‘daddy’ and ‘dad’ but denied he had searched for the video in that way.283 275 The accused was cross-examined at length about some of the searches undertaken by him using the words ‘daddy’, ‘dad’ or ‘daughter’. He agreed that on 23 March 2023, he entered the keywords ‘daughter forced’ into the search bar of the Heavy-R.com website, that about a minute later he entered the keyword search ‘daddy’. He also agreed that about a minute later, he entered the keyword search ‘daddy caught daughter’ and about another minute later, entered the keyword search ‘daughter molested’.284 278 T 207.15-208.2. 279 Exhibit P14 at [22]; T 246.6. 280 T 205.34-206.21. 281 T 206.22-33. 282 T 241.23-242.31. 283 T 243.9-36. 284 Exhibit P7 at p 2, T 244.4-28. -- 46 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 45 276 When asked what he expected to find having entered the words ‘daughter molested’, he gave the following evidence:285 A. I was looking for a certain actress at the time who does a lot of daddy daughter type videos. I was going through tags. That's why they are so close together. I was just searching certain tags. Q. I thought you said you could search on the website by the stars. A. Yes, if you can find their picture and you know their name. I couldn't find her picture or her name. Q. And so you thought another way to find this particular actress was to put in the words 'daughter molested'. A. To look up the genres that she has done before, yes. Q. Couldn't you have just gone to the stars and looked through the thumbnails for the particular person that you were looking for. A. Yes, I did do that. But I couldn't find her picture because it was a different site. She has the option to use different pictures and I didn't know - I couldn't find her in there. Not that I recognised anyway. Q. What was her name. A. I do not recall. Q. Isn't that the exact process that you followed with the male whom you were trying to find, by going into stars and you found his thumbnail. A. Yes, he used the same picture across multiple sites. Q. And you didn't know his name so you just did it by finding his particular picture. A. Yes. 277 The accused also gave evidence that when he searched the site using the keywords ‘sleepy daughter’, he was also looking for material featuring the same actress who was in the video depicted in the image Exhibit P8.286 When asked what that search produced, the accused described a sleeping woman being woken up in a ‘foot play type video’.287 278 He explained that he had searched for this actress on Heavy-R.com as he had previously gone through all 60 of the videos she had on Pornhub. He was specifically looking for ‘squirting’ videos.288 Contrary to his earlier evidence, he said, he did not know the material on that website (Heavy-r.com) was extreme when he first went to that site, although he came to realise that once he read the 285 T 244.31-245.19. 286 T 245.20-22. 287 T 245.25-27. 288 T 246.8-21. -- 47 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 46 content on the homepage. He continued to look on that website, knowing of its extreme content.289 The extreme content on that website which particularly interested him was high flow squirting videos.290 279 When he was asked why he had not entered the search term, ‘high flow squirting video’ (if that was the content he was looking for) and instead had searched ‘daughter molested’, he said he was simply looking for that particular actress.291 280 The accused agreed that he viewed the video which was the subject of the image in Exhibit P8 at 4:28am on 23 March 2023. He agreed this was about 12 minutes after he had entered the search term ‘daughter blackmail’ and about 16 minutes after he had entered the search term ‘daughter molested’. He agreed that video was sub-titled, ‘dad catches teen daughter masturbating and takes advantage of her wet pussy’.292 281 He maintained he had watched the video to see if it had any squirting in it. He gave the following evidence:293 Q. So now you are just watching any particular video to see if it had the squirting in it. A. Yes. I did that a lot as well. Just went from video to video. You can time that on the timestamps on the sheet you gave me before P7 that a lot of them are only a few seconds apart or a minute apart. Q. And they are all related to 'daddy caught daughter'. A. A lot of them, yes. Q. And you end up watching a video. You said - did you watch the entirety of this video. A. No. I skipped through it. Q. Tell us what it showed. A. It showed a woman laying on her back masturbating and there was a male masturbating just off camera. Q. So I thought the whole point here was that you were searching for a particular actress. A. Yes. Q. You ended up watching a video that didn't even contain that actress in it. A. That's right, I couldn't find her. 289 T 246.25-247.22. 290 T 247.23-38. 291 T 248.1-14. 292 T 248.26-249.8. 293 T 249.23-251.3. -- 48 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 47 Q. Why then did you skip through the video. A. I was looking for squirting. Q. It wasn't this particular actress that you were interested in. A. No, it was just a video. Q. Wasn't your evidence yesterday, in fact I thought just before, that the reason you watched this video was because you were interested in the particular actor, the male participant in the video. A. Yes. Q. Is that your evidence now, that's the reason that you watched this video. A. What do you mean now? That's what I've said, that he does squirting videos. Q. So now you're saying 'I was watching this for a particular male actor'. A. Yes, because he does a lot of squirting videos. Q. And you said before that the reason that you found this video is that you went through stars and you found the thumbnail of this particular actor, you said that. A. Yes. Q. Now your evidence is 'I was typing in searches like "Daddy caught daughter" "sleepy daughter" because I was looking for a particular actress that did squirting videos. A. Yes, those other searchs. Q. They were the searches that you entered. A. Yes, when I was looking for the female actress. Q. Now, you're saying that in fact it was the male actress that you went through to find this particular video. A. Not now, that is what I said before, yes. I was looking for the female actress in all the searches you just mentioned, I couldn't find her, and I went to the male actors and I went through some of his videos, this was one of those videos. 282 Later he said that there was a little bit of squirting at the very end of that video but not of the type he was looking for.294 283 He acknowledged that he could have searched specifically for ‘squirting videos’ and said that he had done that at other times.295 294 T 255.13-28. 295 T 255.29-256.32. -- 49 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 48 284 The accused denied thinking about AM when watching the video, the subject of Exhibit P8, alone, in the caravan.296 He denied watched the video because he was fantasising about sexual activity with his teenage daughter, AM.297 He gave the following evidence:298 Q. How do you feel about watching videos that suggest sexual activity between father and daughter. A. Stepdaughter and stuff like that, I sort of just view them all like that, I know they're not related actors and actresses, so I watch as they're all just actors and actresses. Q. That's how you feel about stepdaughter you said, but what about dad and biological daughter. A. It's the same, they're just actors and actresses, I don't connect them as related. Q. You're not living out a fantasy of father and daughter sexual activity. A. No. 285 The accused acknowledged that watching porn was a sort of fantasy and involved role play and that the video in Exhibit P8 involved role play of a dad and daughter engaging in sexual activity. He initially denied that the video depicted the male actor touching the woman’s vagina or putting his penis in her vagina. He claimed the title misdescribed what was shown, namely a man masturbating while watching her play with herself.299 286 Later, when asked a question which suggested that the video might be shown to the Court, the accused acknowledged that it was over two years ago that he had watched that video, said it may have depicted the father touching the daughter, but not in the bits he saw.300 287 He maintained that it was simply a coincidence that AM had accused him of engaging in sexual activity with her, after waking her up when she was asleep, some three months after he had both watched that video and searched specifically for pornography using the term ‘sleepy daughter’.301 288 The accused was asked if he recalled what content he viewed after searching on Heavy-R.com, using the search term ‘sleepy daughter’. He could not recall what content came up with that search but agreed it related to ‘people getting woken up’, including daughters.302 He then gave the following evidence:303 296 T 258.3-7; T 259.8-10. 297 T 251.29-31. 298 T 252.22-34. 299 T 259.27-260.25. 300 T 260.26-261.8. 301 T 261.9-22. 302 T 266.5-16. 303 T 266.8-22. -- 50 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 49 A. 'Sleepy daughter', I don't know what it came up with. Q. You don't remember now. A. I don't know which videos it came up with. Q. But it was 'Sleepy daughter' related porn, correct. A. Yes. Q. It wasn't 'Sleepy stepdaughter' related porn. A. People getting woken up and stuff like that, but yes. Q. Daughters getting woken up. A. Sure. Q. Daughters getting woken up by what. A. Depends on the videos, sometimes it was someone playing with their feet, or I think one in there was someone runs in with a fog horn to scare the crap out of them and it was a two second video. Other cases it was being kissed, or touched or, there's lots of different things. 289 The accused then agreed the content may have included the daughter being woken up while being touched on their vagina and/or breasts. He denied that was exactly the type of content he was looking for when he entered that search term.304 290 The accused acknowledged that he had searched Pornhub using the search term ‘dad and daughter share bed’. When asked what that search came up with, he said:305 A. It came up with people sharing beds, like usually in hotel rooms, like on a camping trip or stuff like that. Q. And it came up specifically with a dad and daughter sharing a bed didn't it. That was the role play in that video. A. The role play in the video was what appeared to be a father and daughter type thing and the female actor, actress, was calling the male 'daddy' through the entire video, yes. 291 He acknowledged he had not searched for that content using the word ‘daddy’. He denied that was because he was looking for father and daughter porn.306 292 The accused agreed he had searched Pornhub using the search term ‘daddy tucks me into bed’.307 When asked what he was looking for, he said he assumed it 304 T 266.23-267.7. 305 T 270.26-34. 306 T 271.3-13. 307 T 274.1-4; Exhibit P10 at p 2. -- 51 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 50 was ‘people’ going to bed or being put into bed. As to who he was hoping to find being tucked into bed by daddy, he said ‘anything’ and referred to seeing content involving a sick wife and a stepdaughter being tucked into bed. He then acknowledged that when he typed in that search term, he expected to see content showing fathers tucking their daughters into bed and the engaging in sexual activity with them.308 293 The accused acknowledged he had searched for pornography using the term ‘stepdaughter first time’ on 18 July 2023. He said he was looking for ‘virgin porn’ and ‘stepdaughter’. He agreed this was at a time when he assumed AM was a virgin.309 He denied there was any connection between those searches and his assumption that AM was a virgin.310 294 The accused acknowledged he had also searched for pornography using the term ‘daughter’s first time’. He gave the following evidence:311 Q. In that moment, you were looking for pornography related to 'daughter's first time', yes. A. Stepdaughter, but daughter, yes. Q. You didn't type 'stepdaughter' there, did you. A. No, I didn't always type the word 'step'. Q. Sometimes you only had one hand. A. Sure. Q. On this occasion, did you only have one hand. A. I couldn't say for sure. Q. On the time that you typed in 'daughter's first time', you were looking for porn involving virgin daughters, yes. A. I was looking for virgins, yes. Q. Virgin daughters. A. Stepdaughters, but yes. Q. Again, why didn't you type 'virgin stepdaughter' on this occasion. A. Because I didn't always type the word 'step'. 308 T 274.5-275.19. 309 T 275.26-276.8. 310 T 310.3-6. 311 T 276.15-38. -- 52 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 51 Q. And the results that you got back when you typed in 'daughter's first time', what were those. A. A lot of stepdaughter first time videos. Q. And daughter first time videos, yes, biological first time videos. A. Sure. 295 The accused acknowledged he had searched for pornography using the term ‘innocent daughter’. He said:312 A. I was searching random words, but yes, 'innocent' being one of those words and looking for stepdaughter porn. Q. Didn't type 'stepdaughter' there, did you. A. I didn't type 'stepdaughter' in that one, no. 296 The accused acknowledged he had searched for pornography using the term ‘virgin daughter’. He said he was looking for virgins, then agreed with a proposition he was looking for ‘virgin daughters.’ He acknowledged it was most likely he watched some ‘virgin daughter’ videos.313 297 After being cross-examined at length about what type of subject matter may be depicted if he had searched using the word ‘forced’, the accused agreed that when he searched for ‘daughter+forced’, he was looking for pornography involving a daughter being tied up, engaging in bondage or having something forced into an orifice including a vagina.314 298 The accused was cross-examined at length about what type of pornography constituted ‘sleeping pornography’. He described ‘wake up, midnight sex’, and referenced his ex-wife waking him up by way of oral stimulation in the middle of the night. He agreed with a proposition that when he searched using the term ‘daughter sleeping’ he was looking for pornography that depicted daughters being orally stimulated and woken up at night.315 299 The accused agreed that on 7 August 2023, he had searched for pornography using the term ‘please fuck me daddy’ and had then watched a video entitled ‘Teen moans when daddy fucks her on the couch’. He said that he assumed it depicted what was in its title. He agreed this was two days before the alleged offending in count 2. He denied he was fantasising about AM when he watched that video.316 312 T 277.27-30. 313 T 277.34-278.19. 314 T 280.26-37. 315 T 281.4-282.29. 316 T 288.22-289.31. -- 53 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 52 300 The accused acknowledged that on 7 August 2023 and on 9 August 2023, he had listened to a video entitled ‘BOP daddy fucks me before work erotic audio’. He denied he was thinking of AM when doing so.317 301 The accused was also cross-examined at some length about his use of the search terms ‘stop you’re my daddy’ and ‘daddy should we be doing this’ given what he had described as to the context in which the term ‘daddy’ was used by him, that is, his prior consensual sexual activity with his ex-girlfriends. He said when he searched using those terms, he was looking for forced orgasm or forced squirting type videos involving the male being called daddy.318 302 During examination-in-chief, the accused acknowledged that he had looked at pornography on his phone which included pornography about dads and daughters having sexual activity, however he denied having a particular attraction to that sort of pornography.319 303 In cross-examination, he acknowledged that he was sexually stimulated by the videos he was watching and would masturbate to them, including those involving those relating to sleeping daughters with their fathers. He agreed these videos depicted actors engaging in fantasy role play. He denied he had offended against AM as a way of living out a fantasy about having sexual intercourse with AM. He said:320 A. Amber is my daughter. I don't see her in that way at all. Like I said, I look at a lot of different videos. Yes, I look at step porn and father-daughter stuff in those contexts, but I also watched other porn as well that I found stimulating. Q. You found the other porn stimulating as well. A. Yes. I masturbated to gay porn, but I never tried to have sex with my friend Shalen, like. 304 During cross-examination, the accused agreed that he had searched for and watched ‘disciplinary pornography’ including videos entitled, ‘Do what daddy says’, ‘Disobeying daddy’ and ‘Disobedient daughter’. He acknowledged that he found those videos sexually gratifying. He agreed that the premise of these videos was that a daughter who did not do what they were told would be punished sexually (by ‘daddy’) and that such punishment could include penile vaginal intercourse. 305 The accused acknowledged that after the argument he had with AM, the night before she went shooting with BM, he was annoyed with her and upset about her behaviour towards him. He denied that he had disciplined her sexually, later that night, by attempting to put his penis in her vagina. He denied that he had sexually 317 T 290.4-29. 318 T 283.3-284.26. 319 T 210.35-211.3. 320 T 294.14-21. -- 54 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 53 offended against AM then, or at the time of count 2, to act out a sexual fantasy involving a father sexually disciplining his daughter.321 Text message – ‘Possible Work Adam’ 306 The accused gave evidence-in-chief about this text message.322 307 He acknowledged that he sent this message to ‘Adam’ being a man he had met on a motorbike ride a few years ago who had said he would offer him a job. That was why he had saved his name in his phone as ‘Possible Work Adam’.323 308 The message was sent on 18 June 2023. The accused gave evidence that he was not working for Adam at that time or working at all. When the accused was asked if was able to walk unaided at that time, as he had written in the message, he said:324 A. No, I was putting his mind at ease because he has a tendency to rock up unannounced and I didn't really want him to do that to my parents' house. Q. Had Adam come to visit you at your parents' house before. A. Once. Q. You also said 'which is a great improvement' was that true. A. Yes, I had improved a bit since he'd last seen me, the last time he'd seen me I had collapsed in front of him and he'd helped me up. Q. How long before this message was t that you collapsed in front of him. A. About a month. Q. Was that before or after the time you told us about when you went to Modbury Hospital. A. It was before. 309 The accused was cross-examined about the time he had collapsed in front of Adam. The accused said:325 A. I was working for Adam, I was cleaning, power washing water features and statues. And I was just using a power washer and my left leg went numb and collapsed out from under me, I just fell on the floor and he helped me up and sat me down and, yeah. 310 He said he had continued to work for Adam for about a week after that incident and they had continued to contact each other via text. He agreed that Adam 321 T 299.18-304.24. 322 This message is reproduced at [200]. 323 T 209.28-37. 324 T 210.11-27. 325 T 220.15-19. -- 55 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 54 had sent him a text message on around 8 May 2023 and that the text message he sent to him on 18 June 2023 was in response to that earlier message.326 311 The accused said that he had not seen Adam in person between the dates of those two messages nor had he had any other contact with him. The last time he had seen Adam, prior to sending the message on 18 June 2023, was when he collapsed in front of him. Adam had not attended at his parents’ house between the dates of those two messages.327 312 The accused agreed with a proposition put to him in cross-examination, that by his message to Adam, he was letting him know how he was going at that point in time. However, he denied what he had written was the truth. He said:328 Q. I thought you just agreed with me before that the message that you sent was to let him know how you were going. A. Yes, I just didn't want to tell him that I was still struggling because he felt really bad. Q. Because he felt really bad. A. He felt bad that I fell at this work and he - before this he did have a tendency to just rock up unannounced. I figured I would catch up with him when I had the time to. 313 The accused then said that Adam had attended at his parents’ house, unannounced, about four or five times. When he was reminded of what he had said previously, namely there was only one such time, the accused explained that he was thinking about his other house at Ridgehaven.329 314 As to why he had waited a month to reply to Adam, if he was so concerned about him attending at his parents’ house unannounced, he said, ‘I’m not the best when it comes to replying to people. It’s a common thing for me to leave it for weeks before I reply to people sometimes’.330 315 Adam rode a motorbike which generated a lot of noise, and would come over, unannounced, wanting him to ride with him. Notwithstanding his parents did not appreciate this, it had not crossed his mind to respond earlier nor had he simply told Adam not to attend there unannounced, as he did not want to come across as rude.331 316 The accused denied a proposition put to him in cross-examination that he had deliberately exaggerated the extent of his back complaint at the time of the alleged 326 T 220.20-221.3. 327 T 231.7-30. 328 T 232.4-13. 329 T 232.22-233.5. 330 T 233.10-12. 331 T 233.17-234.22. -- 56 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 55 offending, including his evidence explaining this text message, to suggest, falsely, that he was physically incapable of performing the acts as described by AM.332 317 The accused denied he was able to walk unaided, without his cane, at the time he sent this text message. He said that he had lied to Adam in the message.333 Prior convictions 318 The accused gave evidence that when he was about 18 or 19, he drove an unregistered vehicle, without his ‘L plates’ and was subsequently convicted of those two offences. He did not get his driver’s licence until he was about 25 or 26. Prior to doing so, he committed an offence of driving while unauthorised to do so, for which he was also convicted. He had no other prior convictions.334 JD’s evidence 319 JD was called by the accused to give character evidence on his behalf. 320 JD gave evidence that she was an enrolled nurse. She first met the accused through her involvement as a church youth group leader, when he was aged about 14 and she was 26. This was around 20 years ago. She estimated that over that period, of some four to five years, she saw the accused in that context at least once or twice a week.335 321 JD gave evidence that she had kept in contact with the accused since then. About five years ago, he was renting her friend’s house, not far from where she lived, and she saw him periodically at that time.336 She also described a time, about four years ago, around Covid time in 2020/2021, when the accused was experiencing a lot of back pain and was finding it hard to move around. She had assisted him by taking him to see a doctor at the North East Medical Clinic one day and had also assisted him to obtain a food parcel through welfare.337 322 JD was asked if she had seen the accused between 2020/21 and 2023. She described an occasion when she attended a Christmas party at a place next door to where the accused was living. She was invited in to see him and his youngest daughter. He had also been present at a wedding where she was a bridesmaid, although she did not get to spend a lot of time with him on that occasion.338 She had occasionally spoken to him or texted him during that same period.339 She explained that she had seen the accused as a kind of nephew and had always taken an interest in his wellbeing since their time together in the youth group.340 332 T 234.23-235.32. 333 T 235.37-236.4. 334 T 215.11-216.8. 335 T 311.19-312.38. 336 T 313.1-9; T 313.17-21. 337 T 313.9-16; T 313.26-314.31; T 315.38-316.4. 338 T 316.5-24. 339 T 317.10-15. 340 T 317.3-9. -- 57 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 56 323 When asked to describe the occasions when she had spent time with the accused and others in a social setting when he was an adult, she reiterated it was only on those two occasions (the Christmas party and the wedding).341 324 JD gave evidence that she had met AM before. She described bumping into the accused and AM when they were at the Royal Show when AM was aged about 10. She estimated she had seen AM a handful of times, including when AM was a teenager but had not spent time with her then.342 325 When asked her view as to the accused’s character, she said that she had always known him to be honest and had never doubted what he was telling her to be anything other than the truth. She had never had reason to doubt his honesty. This went back to youth group days, when he would answer honestly if questioned about something that had happened.343 326 JD gave evidence that she became aware that the accused had been arrested about a year ago, maybe less. She was aware of the nature of the charges he was facing but not the date of the alleged offending.344 She was extremely surprised to hear the allegations, as in her observations of him as a father, he appeared to be a warm and protective father to both AM and LS. She had no doubt he was ‘a great dad’.345 327 JD said she did not think it was at all possible that he had committed the alleged offences, as this was not something she thought he would ever do.346 328 When asked about what she knew about how other people viewed the accused, JD gave the following evidence:347 A. I think Ryan is quite well known for being honest, that's what I can say. I've not had anyone say differently or anyone speak anything differently of him at all. I think he's had some - like, people have sort of suggested that he's had some rough times in life, but that's, that would be the only thing that I would suggest that people would say about him. He's had some rough times but he has always been honest throughout these times. 329 In cross-examination, JD gave evidence that she was unaware that the accused was living in a caravan and said that the last she knew, he was living in a house. She had never visited him in the caravan. She was unaware the allegations related to the accused having sexually abused AM at a time when he was living in a caravan and AM was sleeping in the caravan with him.348 341 T 316.35-317.2. 342 T 315.8-37. 343 T 317.16-35. 344 T 314.32-315.7. 345 T 317.36-318.8; T 319.2-23; T 319.36-320.20. 346 T 322.34-323.5. 347 T 318.13-21. 348 T 319.24-35; T 321.16-18. -- 58 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 57 330 JD said that she had last seen the accused about two to three years ago when he was living in a house at Ridgehaven. They talked about his pain and she helped him secure some food parcels.349 331 JD was unaware that the accused had ever used cannabis. Learning that he had used cannabis did not change her opinion of him, that he was an honest person.350 332 JD had been made aware of the fact that when the accused was arrested, the police had found pornographic material on his phone. However, she was unaware that the material included searches he had made for ‘daughter sleeping’. She was asked if learning the accused had searched for pornography involving pornography depicting daughters being woken by their fathers by penile vaginal intercourse, or of daughters having things forced into their vagina, would change her view of his character. She maintained that learning this did not change her view that he was an honest person.351 She said:352 A. … I mean they're not great, but I don't think that that would equate to him then going on to doing anything with that, other than watching the material. 333 JD gave evidence that this did not change her opinion that she was surprised about the allegations.353 She reiterated the same evidence, when told about the fact the accused had watched the video entitled ‘Teen moans when daddy fucks her on the couch’ two days before the alleged offending in count 2, and when she was told he had found similar videos to be arousing and had masturbated to them.354 She said:355 A. It doesn't change my view. I don't believe he actioned any of that into his own life other than watching it, if he did. 334 JD maintained her opinion that the accused was an honest person and that as he was an honest person, she considered him to be of good character.356 Closing addresses Prosecution Accused’s evidence 335 The prosecutor submitted that the accused was a witness who had sought to tailor the evidence to meet the allegations against him and unwilling to admit what were obvious truths. As such, the Court was urged to cast to one side his evidence, 349 T 321.37-322.23. 350 T 320.24-321.5. 351 T 323.12-325.36. 352 T 326.1-4. 353 T 326.13-17. 354 T 326.24-327.7. 355 T 327.9-11. 356 T 327.12-28. -- 59 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 58 except insofar as it amounted to an admission against his interests or otherwise related to an undisputed matter. 336 The prosecution highlighted various aspects of the accused’s evidence which demonstrated that he lacked credibility. 337 The first related to the explanation he gave relating to the text message to ‘Possible Work Adam’. 338 The Court was urged to reject that explanation as being simply untrue and non-sensical. Rather, the Court was urged to find that, as the accused said himself in that text message, he was able walk round unaided as at 18 June 2023, being contrary to the evidence he gave as to his inability to walk, without a cane, during the period June to August 2023. Such a finding was also consistent with the evidence given by both AM and GM, namely that the accused could walk unaided at the time of the alleged offending. 339 The second related to the evidence given by the accused wherein he consistently sought to distance himself from any interest in pornography involving fathers and daughters and instead tried to suggest that his focus was on viewing ‘daddy/stepdaughter’ pornography. The Court was urged to reject the accused’s explanation as to why he had searched using the keyword ‘daughter’, instead of ‘stepdaughter’ (that is, that he was being lazy and only typing with one hand), having regard to the fact that he had conducted hundreds of searches for pornography, using the word ‘daughter’. 340 It was submitted that by the end of cross-examination, the accused had been forced to concede he did have an interest in viewing pornography involving fathers and daughters and did derive sexual gratification from watching and listening to such pornography. 341 The Court was directed to various internal inconsistencies in the accused’s evidence. These included his evidence on the following topics: • how he came to access the material depicted in Exhibit P8. The initial evidence given by the accused was to the effect he had accessed the video as he had searched for the particular male star who featured in that video.357 Later he suggested he had searched via the tag ‘wet pussy’ as he was looking for a particular actress, known for producing squirting videos;358 • the content of the video depicted in Exhibit P8. The initial evidence given by the accused was that despite its title, the video did not depict the male doing anything to the female, rather it showed him masturbating while she played with herself and made herself squirt.359 Later, he backed away from this and 357 T 241.23-36. 358 T 249.6-25. 359 T 259.37-260.25. -- 60 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 59 said he could not be sure whether the male had touched the female on her vagina, as it was over two years since he had watched the video;360 • the accused’s awareness of the extreme content on the website Heavy-R.com. He initially said that this website had been recommended to him by a friend, as it was more extreme and less vanilla.361 Later, he had said he was unaware of the extreme content on that website, prior to first accessing it;362 and • whether the accused could kneel during June to August 2023. His evidence- in-chief was, ‘[w]ith effort I could probably do it’.363 When asked the same question in cross-examination, he had initially denied any ability to kneel at that time.364 342 It was submitted that considered as a whole, the accused’s evidence demonstrated he was untruthful and self-interested. As such, the Court was urged to reject the evidence given by the accused which sought to demonstrate the impossibility of the offending. That evidence related to the size of the couch AM was sleeping on, the impact of his back injury on his physical capability to do what AM had described, and the proximity of others, within hearing distance, inside the house. Character evidence 343 The prosecutor reminded the Court of the potential uses to be made of any evidence as to the accused’s ‘good character’, as recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Morton (A Pseudonym) v The King.365 344 However, it was submitted that in this case, the central issue in dispute related to the accused’s conduct behind closed doors. Although JD had given evidence attesting to the accused’s good character, she was unaware of what he did behind closed doors – she was unaware that he used cannabis and she was unaware of the nature of the pornographic material searched and watched by him. What she did know of the accused’s character was confined to her believing him to be honest, based largely on her interactions with him when he was a teenager. She was unaware he was living in the caravan and therefore was not in contact with him during the relevant period. 345 It was submitted that JD’s evidence as to the accused’s honesty and good character neither enhanced the accused’s credibility nor spoke against him having committed the offences. 360 T 260.26-261.5. 361 T 207.15-17. 362 T 246.27-28. 363 T 171.4. 364 T 295.33-37. 365 [2025] SASCA 29 at [27]. -- 61 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 60 AM’s evidence 346 It was submitted that AM was an honest witness, whose evidence could be contrasted in many ways with that of the accused. 347 AM had no hesitation in saying things which were contrary to her interests. She was not endeavouring to craft a narrative to fit with the allegations. Rather she had honestly described, to the best of her ability, what she could recall of the offending, acknowledging the limits of her memory. She had not tried to fill in any gaps in her memory. 348 The prosecutor described AM as a reluctant complainant. It was submitted that this was evident both from her demeanour during the AM interview and when giving evidence at trial and in the language, she used in her text message exchange with DA, shortly prior to first speaking to the police. It was submitted that AM presented as both embarrassed and uncomfortable when describing the offending. 349 This told against any alleged motive for AM to lie about the offending. 350 If it was to be suggested that the argument described by the accused comprised some basis for her to concoct the allegations, why would AM wait for over a month to tell anyone about the allegations and why did she beg DA not to tell the police? It was submitted that the Court could safely put to one side any alleged motive to lie. 351 AM had acknowledged that she had some memory difficulties. It was submitted that this explained why she was far clearer in her recollection of the specific details of the offending in count 2, which had only occurred two days prior to the AM interview. Her description of that alleged offending had remained unwavering, precise and consistent in its detail throughout, both as to what had occurred, what she was wearing, and what she and the accused had said to each other during the offending and thereafter. In addition, what she claimed the accused had said to her, namely that he had not gotten off for a long time, was consistent with the accused’s evidence, namely that he had not engaged in any sexual activity (other than self-gratification) since April 2023. 352 Insofar as there were said to be inconsistencies in AM’s account of the alleged offending count 1, these related to peripheral matters only, such as whether she and BM had stayed for lunch after going shooting or the clothing she was wearing during the offending in count 1. However, AM had remained consistent in her description of the core features of the offending, and particularly her description of the nature of any penetration of her vagina during the offending. She remembered what was important, including her memory of the pain she felt during the offending and when urinating the next day, being indicative of her having described a real lived experience. 353 Further, the accused acknowledged that he assumed AM was a virgin. The offending in count 1 as described by AM, and in particular what she described the -- 62 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 61 accused as saying to her, was consistent with the accused being sexually frustrated, knowing that what he was doing was wrong but ‘grappling in some sense with the morality of it.’366 354 The prosecutor submitted that any criticisms levelled against AM relating to her conduct after the alleged offending in count 1, were based on misconceptions as to how a victim such as AM should respond to sexual offending, particularly that perpetrated against her by her own father. As such, the fact that AM may have hugged the accused the next morning or continued to visit him, was not inconsistent with her having been a victim of the alleged offending. Further, the fact that AM did not complain to anyone in the house about the alleged offending in either count was unsurprising, both because of her reluctance as a complainant and the fact that these were the accused’s family members. Complaint evidence 355 The prosecutor acknowledged the inconsistencies in the evidence given by AM, DA and LT about the circumstances in which AM had complained about the offending. It was submitted that the Court should approach LT’s evidence with some caution. Although he had been quite certain that AM had described multiple occasions of abuse, he had also acknowledged the limitations of what he could recall in terms of the details she had disclosed. He had described the offending as having occurred at AM’s dad’s house. It was submitted that insofar as his memory of what was said by AM differed from that of AM, AM’s evidence should be preferred. 356 Insofar as DA had described a further conversation with AM at GM’s house, her evidence amounted to an elaboration of the initial complaint and was therefore properly before the Court. DA’s description of what AM had said about the alleged offending at Tea Tree Plaza, namely that she had been sexually assaulted by her father, was consistent with the allegations made by AM. DA described AM telling her further details about the allegations in count 1 prior to 11 Augst 2023, with those details again being consistent with the allegations. 357 It was submitted that notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the complaint evidence did demonstrate consistency of conduct on AM’s part, both as to what was said about the alleged offending and the fact that she had disclosed the offending to a trusted friend at a time when she felt comfortable to do so. It was submitted that as such the complaint evidence supported AM’s credibility. Improbability reasoning 358 The prosecutor submitted that in this case, the evidence relating to the type of pornography searched for and watched by the accused was powerful evidence which told against a finding that AM had either fabricated, imagined or was mistaken about the alleged offending. 366 T 349.16. -- 63 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 62 359 AM had no knowledge of the material found on the accused’s phone. 360 Although the accused had endeavoured to downplay his interest in daddy/daughter pornography, by emphasising his interest and addiction to all types of pornography, both his own evidence and search history demonstrated the sheer volume of such material he was searching for and accessing. He admitted being sexually gratified by such material. 361 Although this was publicly available material, the prosecutor submitted it was, of itself, inherently unlikely that the accused would have had an interest in this type of pornographic material but even more unlikely that he would have actively searched for and viewed such material in close proximity in time to the alleged offending, in particular the offending in count 2. 362 The Court was reminded of the evidence which demonstrated the accused had viewed pornographic material depicting a sleeping daughter woken by sexual activity instigated by a father and material depicting sexual activity against a teenage daughter, on a couch. It was reminded of the specific search terms used by the accused which included ‘sleepy daughter’ and ‘daughter forced’. It was submitted that this evidence had very strong probative force in terms of the Court’s consideration as to whether there was any reasonable possibility that AM had lied about the offending, was mistaken about it or had imagined it. Cross admissibility 363 Finally, it was submitted that if the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the offending in count 2, this was strong evidence to support a finding that the accused had a sexual interest in AM and a tendency to act on such interest at a time proximate to the offending in count 1. It was submitted that this was strong circumstantial evidence to support a finding of guilt as to count 2, particularly when used in conjunction with improbability reasoning. Defence AM’s evidence 364 Defence counsel reminded the Court that it would need to scrutinise AM’s evidence with great care, as that evidence was critical to the prosecution case. It was submitted that after undertaking that task, the Court should have some serious concerns about both AM’s reliability and credibility. 365 The first such concern was said to relate to the overall implausibility of AM’s offending in each count. 366 On AM’s evidence, the offending in count 1 was the first time the accused had offended in such a way against her. It occurred, ‘out of the blue’, in the absence of any grooming of her, or any evidence of anything inappropriate in terms of their relationship, or any pressure being put on AM, by the accused, to visit him or stay overnight in the caravan with him. It was submitted that it was inherently -- 64 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 63 implausible that without ‘testing the waters’, the accused would endeavour to have penile vaginal intercourse with AM in such circumstances. She was 17 years old. He could not have known how she would react (ie would she call out, or complain immediately to someone in the house, or complain shortly thereafter to BM or GM). It was submitted that the risks associated with such offending were so extreme as to render it implausible. 367 AM gave evidence that after the offending in count 1, she and the accused had a smoke and she then fell asleep, in the caravan. AM gave evidence that almost immediately after the offending in count 2, she fell asleep, in the caravan. The back door of the house was open. She could have left the caravan, gone inside and slept on the couch in the living room. She did not seek assistance from any of the trusted adults in the house nor seek refuge within the house. It was submitted that such behaviour was simply inconsistent with either alleged offence having occurred. 368 AM acknowledged that it was her choice whether she visited the accused. She was under no obligation or pressure to do so. AM had continued to both visit the accused and stay overnight with him in the caravan, after the alleged offending in count 1, being inconsistent with that offending having occurred. 369 There was no dispute that the accused had a significant back complaint at the time of the alleged offending. It was submitted that the Court should accept the accused’s evidence and find that because of that back injury, it was physically impossible for him to manoeuvre himself up onto the bed, on top of AM and/or to kneel down beside her, as she had claimed. In addition, the Court should find that given his physical limitations and the limited space, it was implausible that he could lie on top of AM and remove the bottom half of her clothing, without waking her. 370 Similarly, it was submitted that the Court should accept the accused’s evidence that it was physically impossible for two people to fit on AM’s couch in any event and there was simply insufficient space on the couch, in the caravan, for the alleged offending, in either count, to have occurred. 371 Defence counsel submitted that there were also important inconsistencies in AM’s account. It submitted that rather than simply being a peripheral matter, AM’s evidence about experiencing pain, when she went to the toilet, while having lunch with GM the day after the offending in count 1, was part of her core recollection of that offending. If AM was wrong about that, it should cause the Court to have serious doubts as to both the reliability and credibility of her account of that offending. Similarly, AM had told Officer Dawson she was wearing shorts at the time of that offending, whereas in evidence she had said she was wearing trackpants. As to the offending in count 2, AM had told Officer Dawson she was wearing trackpants at that time but could not recall her clothing when giving evidence. -- 65 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 64 372 It was submitted that AM’s evidence as to count 1, carefully considered, did not establish that any penetration had occurred of either the vagina or the labia majora. AM had not used any such terminology when describing what she claimed had occurred. She had continued to describe herself as a virgin, being inconsistent with any penetration occurring. 373 Although much had been made by the prosecutor to the effect that AM was a ‘reluctant’ complainant, it was suggested that her reluctance and discomfort in describing the offending was equally consistent with her being uncomfortable to continue the lie she had told to DA about the offending, to the police, or to the Court. 374 The Court was urged to accept the accused’s evidence as to the argument he claimed occurred the night before AM went shooting with BM, thus explaining why AM was lying about the offending. However, the Court was reminded that there was no onus on the defence to prove any such motive and that AM could have lied for any number of reasons. Complaint evidence 375 AM had not immediately complained to anyone in the house about the alleged offending, despite those persons being people she trusted. She had not used her mobile phone to contact anyone, on the night of the alleged offending in count 1. She had not told BM about the alleged offending, nor had she told GM. It was submitted that these were relevant matters for the Court to take into account, both when considering the overall plausibility of AM’s account of the alleged offending and the consistency of her conduct.367 376 Further, it was submitted that the fact AM chose to complain to DA about the alleged offending in count 1 at a birthday celebration, in a public food court, in front of LK (who she had just met) was strange in itself. AM was not upset or crying at the time. There were inconsistencies in the evidence of DA and LK as to what was said by AM on that occasion and inconsistencies as between both of those witnesses and AM’s evidence. Further, if LK was correct and AM complained of multiple occasions of abuse, that did not fit with her allegation of count 1 being the first occasion of any such offending. 377 As to the complaint made to DA about the alleged offending in count 2, it was submitted that it was arguable, in any event, that what AM had described was not referrable to that alleged offending. She did not tell DA she had been touched on the vagina. She told DA she was ‘pinned down’, which was not something she had previously described in terms of that alleged offending. 378 It was submitted that in these circumstances, the complaint evidence did not demonstrate any consistency in AM’s conduct, either in terms of when she 367 R v Dhir [2019] SASCFC 55 at [51]. -- 66 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 65 complained, who she complained to or what she had said about the alleged offending, in either count. Defence case 379 Contrary to the submissions made by the prosecutor, defence counsel argued that the accused had been open, frank and honest in the evidence he had given, particularly his evidence relating to the pornography that he had viewed and his sexual interest in pornography involving adults, engaging in role play, depicting fathers and daughters or stepdaughters. 380 It was submitted that this was legal pornography, viewed by many members of the public. It was just part of a wide variety of legal pornography, of many different types, viewed by the accused. It was therefore unsurprising that the accused could not recall, in detail, what was depicted in pornography he had watched from some two to three years ago. 381 The accused had not sought to downplay what he was looking at, nor the fact of his pornography addiction. The material before the Court did not include a record of all the pornography he had searched for and/or watched. The fact Pornhub did not keep a record of the search terms used within that website meant the Court did not have a complete picture of his pornography use. 382 The accused had explained why he had searched for daddy/daughter pornography (in the context of his ‘ex’ calling him ‘daddy’) and that he found such pornography arousing. He had explained why he had used various search terms to try to find certain actors or actresses in whom he had an interest. However he had remained steadfast in his denial of having any sexual interest in AM or of acting out anything he had seen in that pornography, with AM. 383 The Court was urged not to lose sight of the fact there was nothing unlawful in what the accused was watching, nor was he actively searching for pornography of a type relating to the specific allegations made by AM. 384 Although it was conceded that the accused had searched for daddy/daughter pornography, it was submitted that there was no striking similarity between AM’s account of either charged offence and the particular searches made by the accused, nor the videos watched by the accused and specifically, there were no searches for ‘biological daughter’. It was submitted that in such circumstances, the evidence went no further than to show the accused was looking for legal adult pornography and did not support improbability of account reasoning of the type as submitted by the prosecution. 385 It was submitted that the fact the accused looked at what was adult pornography did not mean he was not otherwise a person of good character. The Court was urged to accept JD’s evidence as to the accused being both an honest person and a man of good character, and her evidence as to his reputation generally, in circumstances where she had known him over an extended period of -- 67 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 66 time. It was submitted the Court should find that the accused was a man of otherwise good character, meaning it was less likely that he offended. 386 Insofar as the accused had admitted being dishonest in his text message to ‘Possible Work Adam’, he had provided a reasonable explanation as to why, which the Court should accept. 387 It was submitted that the Court should find, consistent with JD’s evidence, that the accused was being honest to the Court when he described the extent of his back injury and the physical dimensions of the couch, rendering the offending physically impossible. It was submitted that the Court should find that the accused was being honest in his denials of the alleged offending in each count. Ruling as to late amendment of Information 388 The Court granted the application made by the prosecution, at the end of their closing address, to amend the Information as to the particulars in count 1, to include the words ‘and/or labia majora’ after the word ‘vagina’. 389 The possibility for such an amendment being made was raised by the Court, having regard to the evidence given by AM as to the circumstances of that offending and specifically how she had described any alleged penetration. 390 Section 128(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 allows to Court to amend an Information at any stage of a trial as it thinks necessary if the Information is defective; or there is a variation between a particular stated in the Information and the evidence given in proof of that particular. Such an amendment should not be made if, having regard to the merits of the case, the proposed amendment cannot be made without causing injustice. 391 The application was opposed. 392 It was submitted that as the relevant evidence was adduced from AM during a prescribed interview, rather than oral evidence, any such application ought to have been made before the trial. It was submitted that notwithstanding the accused’s case was that the alleged offending simply did not occur (in any form), had the offence included these additional particulars, a forensic decision may have been made to cross-examine AM differently. 393 I have discussed AM’s evidence as to what occurred during the alleged offending in count 1, in detail. As discussed, AM claimed the accused inserted his penis into her vagina, ‘a little bit’,368 but not ‘like actually in in or like breaking that wall’.369 She said, ‘so he wasn’t doing it properly but enough for it to actually push in slightly.’370 During examination-in-chief, she described suffering pain in her 368 MFIP2 at line 308. 369 Ibid at line 310. 370 Ibid at line 352. -- 68 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 67 vagina, ‘where the entrance is’.371 She described feeling pain when she first went to the toilet the next day. 394 AM was not asked any specific questions using the terminology ‘labia majora’ or ‘lips’. She was not questioned as to whether she had ever heard of the term ‘labia majora’ or if she knew what it meant. 395 Although considered at its highest, AM’s evidence was consistent with the pleaded particulars, what she described was more consistent with the penetration of the labia majora, that is, the outer lips or folds of skin at the entrance to her vagina. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there was a variation between the particulars of count 1 and the evidence offered in proof of that particular. 396 If count 1 had been amended to this effect before cross-examination, it is theoretically possible that counsel for the accused may have sought to specifically test AM’s evidence to establish that the accused’s penis did not penetrate her labia majora. 397 However, AM was not cross-examined at all to test her evidence as to the extent of any alleged penetration. It was never suggested to her that all that had occurred was that the accused had rubbed his penis against or near her vagina. This is understandable, given the accused’s case was that the alleged act described by AM simply did not occur. 398 The accused was always charged with unlawful sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse, by definition, includes not only penetration of the vagina, but penetration of the labia majora. 399 In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that no injustice was caused by the making of the amendment. Analysis of JD’s evidence 400 I do not doubt JD’s honesty. My overall impression of her evidence was that she was doing her best to paint the accused in the most favourable light, while remaining truthful to herself and to the Court. She obviously cares for the accused. 401 I accept that JD was telling the truth when she gave evidence that she has always believed and still believes the accused to be an honest person. However, that opinion was based predominantly on her interactions with the accused over 20 years ago when he was a teenager. I am satisfied that JD has had only limited ongoing contact with the accused during his adulthood. She described fleeting interactions with him (at the Royal Show, in connection with a Christmas party and at a wedding). The most significant interaction she described occurred several years prior to the alleged offending, in about 2020 or 2021, when she assisted the accused to both attend a doctor’s appointment and secure a food package. 371 T 53.16-19. -- 69 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 68 402 Importantly, JD was unaware the accused was living in a caravan at any time. I am therefore satisfied that JD did not have any contact with the accused during the period of the alleged offending. 403 JD was put in an invidious situation, as it became quite clear that she did not know that the accused had used cannabis or that he watched and listened to pornography (and specifically daddy/daughter pornography). She was visibly shocked when hearing some of the search terms he had used when looking at pornography. Notwithstanding this, she maintained this did not change her opinion that the accused was an honest person. 404 As I said, I accept JD’s evidence as to her personal opinion of the accused. However, I can attribute little weight to this evidence because of the intermittent and brief interactions JD has had with the accused in his adult years, and, importantly, the fact she did not interact with him at all during the period he was living in the caravan. 405 I also accept JD’s evidence that, as far as she knew, others would also say the accused was an honest person. However, that evidence has very limited weight in the absence of JD giving evidence of having spent any time with the accused, in the company of others, when the accused was an adult. The evidence JD gave about her understanding of the accused’s reputation appears to have been based on the fact that she had not heard anyone say he was dishonest. 406 Although JD had met AM, it was clear from her evidence, and I find, that she had only seen AM with the accused on a handful of occasions, with her best memory of an interaction with them having occurred during a chance encounter at the Royal Adelaide Show. She also described an occasion when she saw the accused with his youngest daughter, when she popped in to see them when she was otherwise attending a Christmas party next door to where they were living. 407 Although JD gave evidence that the accused was a protective and warm father (a ‘great dad’), I am satisfied and find that the extent of her interactions with the accused and his children were simply too limited for her to offer any meaningful or informed opinion to the Court as to his qualities as a parent and/or as to the nature of his relationship with AM. Analysis of accused’s evidence General observations 408 The accused was a very poor witness. 409 Notwithstanding JD’s personal opinion that the accused was an honest person, I am satisfied that the accused was a dishonest witness, who falsely tailored many aspects of his evidence, both to attempt to demonstrate that the offending was physically impossible and to justify the basis for what he watched and what he searched for, when using pornography. -- 70 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 69 410 I am satisfied that the evidence given by the accused as to the extent of his mobility issues at the time of the alleged offending, the size of the couch upon which AM was sleeping and the ability for those in the house to hear what was going on in the caravan (and vice versa) at night time, was exaggerated and/or untrue. 411 Simply put, I have no confidence in the credibility (or reliability) of the evidence given by the accused, including the evidence he gave denying the alleged offending. Back injury/Mobility 412 There was no dispute that the accused has been troubled by back pain for many years, having injured his back in an accident as a child. 413 However, I am satisfied that the evidence the accused gave about his injury and its effect on his mobility as at the time of the offending in each count, was deliberately overstated in an attempt to convince the Court that he was physically incapable of committing the offending. 414 I am mindful that the accused bears no onus to prove anything. However, it would have been a relatively simple task for the accused to obtain and produce medical records from the Modbury Hospital, the Modbury Medical Centre and/or any other general practitioner, to corroborate aspects of his evidence. There were no such documents in evidence. 415 There were internal inconsistencies in the evidence the accused gave about his back injury during the relevant period, that is, June to August 2023. 416 During examination-in-chief, the accused initially said he was not seeing a doctor or a specialist about his back in June 2023 because he had trouble getting anywhere.372 He later gave evidence that after being admitted to the Modbury Hospital in May 2023, he attended at the Modbury Medical Centre a few times to get pain relief and would see the first available general practitioner at that centre.373 In cross-examination, the accused gave evidence that he was also seeing a general practitioner, separately, to get paracetamol, during this period.374 417 The accused gave evidence that it was general pain which stopped him from moving.375 It was in this context that he said he resumed smoking cannabis in May 2023. However, the evidence he gave about the benefits he derived from using cannabis was unclear, at best, and inconsistent, at worst. 372 T 167.1-3. 373 T 167.25-168.4. 374 T 221.28-223.2. 375 T 168.38. -- 71 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 70 418 During his evidence-in-chief, the accused denied there had been any improvement in his pain levels after he started using cannabis.376 However, he then said that the cannabis helped him pain wise but did not help with his mobility.377 In cross-examination, the accused gave evidence that cannabis would help relax his back muscles and help him fall asleep and acknowledged that it was effective in alleviating his pain.378 This evidence is difficult to reconcile and consistent with what I am satisfied was the accused’s over emphasis of the extent of his mobility issues during the relevant period. 419 I accept the evidence of Officer Davis that the accused was using a cane at the time of his arrest on 11 August 2023. However, both GM and AM gave evidence, which I accept, that at times, during the relevant period, the accused could walk unaided. Importantly, their evidence was consistent with what the accused wrote in his text message to ‘Possible Work Adam’ (Adam) on 18 June 2023, that he was able to walk around unaided. I am satisfied that what the accused wrote in that text message was true, despite his evidence to the contrary. 420 I do not accept the evidence the accused gave to try to explain away why he wrote what he did, in that text message. If, as he claimed, he sent this message to stop Adam from coming over to his parents’ house unannounced, on his motorbike, why not simply say that? It is difficult to see how Adam could have interpreted the accused’s message as a request to stay away. 421 Further, the message was sent in response to a message sent to the accused by Adam on 8 May 2023. If the accused was so concerned to stop Adam from visiting unannounced, why wait over five weeks to reply (and then send a message using the language that he did)? 422 There were several other aspects of the evidence the accused gave on this topic which concerned me. 423 The accused gave evidence-in-chief that he had not seen Adam since he (the accused) had collapsed in front of him and Adam had helped him up. He said this incident had occurred when he was working for Adam, cleaning, using a power washer, and his left leg went numb and collapsed beneath him. This was about a month before he sent the message and was before the occasion when he had collapsed and attended the Modbury Hospital. He also said that Adam had attended at his parents’ house once before.379 424 In cross-examination, the accused gave internally inconsistent evidence. When asked how many times Adam had attended at his parents’ house, unannounced, the accused said ‘about four or five times’. When this inconsistency 376 T 168.13-38. 377 T 171.22-26. 378 T 218.27-34; T 219.4-5. 379 T 210.14-27. -- 72 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 71 was pointed out to the accused, he tried to explain his error on the basis that he was thinking about his other house at Ridgehaven. 425 The accused gave evidence that he had continued to work for Adam for about a week after the incident when he had collapsed in front of him. However, at the start of his evidence-in-chief, when giving evidence about his work history, the accused was asked when he had last worked, before June 2023. He said:380 I’m not sure the exact date but it was approximately six months beforehand. 426 He went on to describe that job as being as a courier for medical supplies. He said he left that job because he had reinjured his back in an accident at work, when some objects in his van had fallen on him. 427 I am satisfied that the evidence given by the accused about the ‘Possible Work Adam’ text message was untrue. Not only did it make no sense, but it contained internal inconsistencies, most likely the product of it being part of a false narrative. 428 I am satisfied that as at 18 June 2023, the accused could walk unaided. However, I do not doubt that if required to walk longer distances, or over difficult terrain, he may have felt more comfortable either using his cane, or having his cane with him, to use, if needed. 429 There were photographs of the interior of the caravan in evidence. There was only a very short distance between the accused’s bed and the couch upon which AM was sleeping at the time of the two alleged offences. I am satisfied that as at the time of the offending in both counts, the accused could walk that distance unaided. 430 If I am wrong about that, and, for example, the accused was having a bad day, and needed his cane to mobilise, I am satisfied that he was physically capable of walking the very short distance between his bed and that couch, supported, as necessary, by his cane. The accused readily acknowledged he could walk and cover distances using his cane (ie laps of the backyard after the alleged argument with AM). 431 I have considered whether, in such a case, any noise created by the use of the cane, should have woken AM, thus rendering her account of the offending in each instance, implausible. However, AM had slept overnight in the caravan regularly on a Wednesday night before the alleged offending in count 1, at a time when the accused claimed to be struggling with his back injury. It is inconceivable that there were not times when the accused required the use of his cane, and was in the house, either socialising or using the toilet, and came back to the caravan, while AM was sleeping. There was no evidence of any occasion when AM was asleep, in the 380 T 165.1-2. -- 73 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 72 caravan, but woken by the accused having to use his cane to walk around inside the caravan. 432 GM gave unchallenged evidence that when the accused was living in the caravan, he would come over to her house every couple of weeks to visit. She said the last such visit was about a week before he was arrested and that he normally got to her house on his motorbike. I accept that unchallenged evidence. 433 The accused had to get into and onto his own bed to sleep during the relevant period. It must follow from GM’s evidence that the accused was able to get on and off his motorbike during the relevant period. Although climbing onto AM’s bed, such that he was positioned over the top of her, facing her, may have caused the accused pain, I am satisfied he was physically capable of doing this during the relevant period.381 434 In making that finding, I have also had regard to the accused’s evidence that during the relevant period, he was using cannabis (which he acknowledged assisted with his pain) and other strong pain medication. In this respect, the accused gave evidence that he used cannabis before going to bed on the night AM claimed the offending in count 1 had occurred. He also gave evidence that he was prescribed Panadeine Forte about a week or two before the alleged offending in count 1. 435 During his evidence-in-chief, the accused was asked if he could kneel during the relevant period and he said, ‘[w]ith effort I could probably do it’.382 In cross- examination, the accused did not agree that he was capable of kneeling as at August 2023. When that inconsistency was highlighted to him, the accused’s response was ‘Okay then, yeah, I could probably do it. But not without difficulty’.383 436 I am satisfied that at the time of the alleged offending in counts 1 and 2, the accused was physically capable of kneeling. Even if it caused him pain, the evidence given by AM was not to the effect that the accused spent lengthy periods kneeling after either alleged offence. What she described, in each instance, was a relatively short period of time when the accused was kneeling beside her. As such, any pain was short lived. 437 The accused gave evidence about the difficulty he experienced getting up off the floor (or out of chairs etc). The effect of that evidence was that he needed to push himself up with his hand, using furniture or his cane to support him, to get from a seated position, or up from kneeling. The photographs of the caravan show that there is a small fridge, under a bench, immediately adjacent to the couch on which AM was sleeping. I am satisfied that the accused would have been able to 381 I have made further findings below relevant to the submission that the accused would not have been physically capable of removing AM’s pants and underwear, from this position, without waking her. 382 T 171.4. 383 T 296.3-4. -- 74 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 73 use either the top of that fridge, or that bench, or the couch itself, for support, to push himself up from a kneeling position, next to AM’s bed. 438 Contrary to the accused’s evidence, notwithstanding his back injury, I am satisfied the accused was physically capable of performing the acts described in AM’s account of the alleged offending in counts 1 and 2. Size of couch 439 The accused gave evidence-in-chief that the couch AM slept on, in the caravan, was only about the width of one and a half or two of his hands.384 He described the couch as being too small for him to sit on it because of its width. He said, ‘with my back, I wouldn’t even be able to sit on it normally because I have to lean and it just wouldn’t fit me.’385 440 There was a photograph of the couch in evidence which shows what appears to be a regular sized rectangular pillow fitting, width wise, across the couch.386 When the accused was shown this photograph in cross-examination, he conceded the couch was the same width as a pillow.387 He also reluctantly conceded the couch was wide enough for him to fit on it, on top of AM.388 However almost immediately thereafter, he gave the following evidence:389 Q. But you could have fit on top of Amber on this couch if you were laying on top of her. A. I can't even lay on this couch. I wouldn't fit laying on this couch, from end to end I wouldn't fit on it, my legs would be hanging over, almost to the actual door. Q. So when you said before that you could potentially fit maybe on the couch on top of Amber, were you lying - A. Like sitting, like sitting, over the top or something maybe, not lying. 441 The accused claimed he had never lay down on the couch as it was way too short.390 AM fit on the couch to sleep. As to count 1, she described her legs being open and him pushing his penis against her vagina, between her legs. As to the offending in both counts, AM simply described the accused as being on top of her. She did not describe the accused lying down flat on top of her, at any time. 442 Although the couch was quite short, I am satisfied that it was both wide enough and long enough for the accused to be on top of AM, such that it was physically possible for him to be positioned in a way that he could attempt to insert his penis in her vagina in the way described by AM and/or touch her vagina 384 T 176.3-27. 385 T 176.13-16. 386 Exhibit P4 at p 2. 387 T 307.7-10. 388 T 307.13. 389 T 308.19-27. 390 T 176.34-177.3. -- 75 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 74 in the way she described. I am also satisfied from the photographs of the caravan, that the distance between the top of the couch and the ceiling of the caravan, was such, that the accused could physically fit in that space, on top of AM, as AM described.391 Proximity of caravan to house 443 The accused gave evidence that the caravan was located only about two to three metres away from his brother’s bedroom window, which was the window closest to the caravan.392 He claimed his brother always slept with his bedroom window open because he overheated easily.393 However, the caravan door would be shut at night. 444 Photograph 4 of Exhibit P4 depicts the back of the caravan, adjacent to the rear of the house. It also depicts the accused’s brother’s bedroom window. Although it is impossible to be precise, from that photograph, as to the relevant distances involved, I am satisfied that the back wall of the caravan is more than two to three metres from that window. 445 I am also satisfied from the photographs, that the accused’s bed was adjacent to the back wall of the caravan, that is, at the narrow end of the van, closest to the accused’s brother’s bedroom window. AM’s couch was at the opposite end of the caravan, meaning it was further away from that bedroom window. 446 The alleged offending occurred in June and August – in winter. While it is possible that the accused’s brother’s bedroom window was left open at night, it is unlikely that someone would be so hot, at that time of the year, to need to leave the window open in order not to overheat. 447 My impression of this evidence was that it was exaggerated, both as to the fact that window was ‘always’ left open at night and the actual proximity of the caravan to that window. Pornographic search history 448 The accused’s evidence given by way of explanation for the nature of the searches he conducted within pornography websites was extremely difficult to follow. It was littered with internal inconsistencies. 449 I accept that the accused had an interest in adult pornography of many different types. I further accept that the pornography he searched for and accessed was all legal adult pornography. 391 Exhibit P4 at p 2. 392 T 177.30-36. 393 T 178.38-179.1. -- 76 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 75 450 When initially questioned about his pornography use, the accused gave evidence that his preferred category of pornography was massage and specifically ‘nuru massage’.394 451 He then gave evidence specifically addressing the ‘daddy/daughter’ pornography that he had watched. The explanation he gave for this was that, about a year or two before his arrest, he had an ‘ex’ who used to call him ‘daddy’.395 In cross-examination, that explanation had extended to there being a few ‘exes’ who had called him ‘daddy’, including ‘Kate’, who was not an ‘ex’ as such, rather a ‘friend with benefits’. 452 The accused gave convoluted evidence about what the word ‘daddy’ meant in a sexual/pornographic context. As part of that evidence, he described how he had felt it was odd when his ‘ex’ first used this terminology, and that she then ‘googled’ the word ‘daddy’, in front of him, to explain what that term meant, after he questioned her about it.396 I simply do not accept that evidence. Before giving that evidence, the accused had explained how common it was for women to call men ‘daddy’ in a sexual manner and referred to interviewers using that moniker when speaking with celebrities. I have no doubt that if the accused ever had an ‘ex’ who called him ‘daddy’ during sexual activity, that he was well aware, at the time, what was meant by that term, if used in that specific context. 453 The accused acknowledged that about 60% to 70% of the pornography that he watched fell into either the ‘daddy’ or ‘step-daddy’ category.397 However, he denied looking at pornographic videos on his phone that had anything to do with a theme relating to a father.398 This denial was seemingly linked to his insistence that ‘daddy’ in porn did not mean ‘father’ as such. It was simply a nickname, ‘like ‘babe’ or ‘honey’’.399 He was wanting to hear the male actor be called ‘daddy’.400 454 The accused categorically denied any interest in father and daughter pornography,401 albeit he acknowledged an interest in stepdaughter porn. Precisely how that differed, in content, from ‘daddy/daughter’ pornography was never properly explained. 455 The accused acknowledged he had searched pornography using keywords other than ‘step-daddy’ or ‘daddy’, such as ‘dad’, ‘daughter’ and ‘stepdaughter’. Of course, this was apparent from the material found on his mobile phone. His explanation for this was that searching by using these terms all brought up the same 394 T 196.32-36. 395 T 201.22-28. 396 As outlined at [260]. 397 T 202.28-30. Noting such evidence is internally inconsistent with the accused’s earlier evidence that his preferred pornography was ‘nuru massage’ pornography. 398 T 201.18. 399 T 272.2-3. 400 T 271.26-27. 401 T 204.18-19; T 271.11-13. -- 77 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 76 sort of pornography (ie ‘daddy porn’). If these search terms brought up the same content, one queries why it would be necessary to search using all such terms. 456 The accused acknowledged that he had typed in ‘dad’ and ‘search’ but then went onto say that the website would automatically fill the rest of the word ‘dad’ to make it ‘daddy’.402 If this is so, then it is unusual that there would ever be a need for the accused to search by typing in the full word, ‘daddy’, which he did on many occasions. 457 As to why the accused had searched for pornography using the term ‘daughter’, he said, initially, ‘Same as the ‘daddy’ thing, it brings you to like ‘stepdaughter’ or similar things like that’.403 458 However, later, when explaining why he had searched on the Heavy-R.com website using the keywords ‘daughter molested’, instead of ‘stepdaughter molested’, he said he had typed in ‘daughter’, on that occasion, because he was being lazy and only using one hand to type. He maintained he was looking for ‘step porn’ but it was just lazier and quicker to type in ‘daughter’.404 I reject this evidence, as being farcical. 459 Later, in cross-examination, when confronted with a plethora of searches undertaken by him using the word ‘daughter’, the accused’s evidence changed tack. He acknowledged he had an interest in watching actors and actresses engage in ‘role play’ pretending to be fathers and daughters. He acknowledged that was a reason why he had specifically searched using the word ‘daughter’. He acknowledged he found videos depicting a daughter (played by an actress) being sexually punished for disobeying their father (being played by an actor) to be sexually gratifying. 460 Notwithstanding the accused’s initial explanation for why he watched ‘daddy’ and ‘step-daddy’ porn, (that is, his ‘ex’ used to call him daddy) when the accused was asked again why he had an interest in that type of pornography, he described having a particular interest in some of the porn stars who regularly featured in that type of pornography.405 461 The evidence demonstrated that the accused regularly searched pornographic websites, using search terms including the word ‘daddy’, ‘daughter’ and ‘stepdaughter’. The accused gave detailed evidence about the ability to search pornography websites by ‘star’ category, whereby you could simply click on the photograph of the actor or actress you were looking for and it would direct you to their content. If the accused had an interest in ‘daddy’ porn because of the actors, there was simply no need for him to search using the words ‘daddy’ or ‘daughter’. He could have simply searched for that pornography using the ‘star’ category. 402 T 203.25-38. 403 T 204.14-15. 404 T 265.23-35. 405 T 202.33-36. -- 78 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 77 Conversely, if his real interest in ‘daddy porn’ was to hear someone say the word ‘daddy’, why not confine his searches to those including the word ‘daddy’? 462 Similarly, the accused attempted to explain his search history on the basis that the search terms used by him, would often lead to content involving ‘squirting’, which was of particular interest to him. Again, if that specific genre of pornography was what interested him, the accused could have specifically searched for it, using that specific terminology (or similar). 463 The accused’s evidence as to why he watched the video depicted in image Exhibit P8 (and what it depicted) contained numerous inconsistencies. This was the video entitled ‘Dad plays with Teen Daughter’. 464 At first, the accused described watching that video because of his interest in the male actor featured in it, who regularly featured in ‘squirting videos’. He said he had searched for that video under the ‘star’ category to look for that actor. Notwithstanding his interest in that actor, he could not remember his name. 465 The next day, in cross-examination, the accused acknowledged that he viewed that video at 4:28am on 23 March 2023. This was shortly after he had entered the search terms ‘daughter forced’, ‘daughter molested’, ‘daughter blackmail’ and ‘sleepy daughter’ on that website. By way of explanation, the accused claimed to have been looking for a certain actress who did daddy/daughter type videos and squirting videos.406 466 The accused gave evidence that although the video in Exhibit P8 did not have that actress in it, he had watched the video, to see if it showed squirting (as it had the ‘wet pussy’ tagline). The inference from this evidence was that he had watched the video because he was looking for a particular female actress (not a specific male actor). 467 When reminded of the earlier evidence he had given as to why he had watched that video (that is, after searching for a particular male actor) he said:407 Q. Now your evidence is 'I was typing in searches like "Daddy caught daughter" "sleepy daughter" because I was looking for a particular actress that did squirting videos. A. Yes, those other searches. Q. They were the searches that you entered. A. Yes, when I was looking for the female actress. Q. Now, you're saying that in fact it was the male actress that you went through to find this particular video. 406 T 248.26-249.8. 407 T 250.28-251.3. -- 79 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 78 A. Not now, that is what I said before, yes. I was looking for the female actress in all the searches you just mentioned, I couldn't find her, and I went to the male actors and I went through some of his videos, this was one of those videos. 468 The accused ultimately acknowledged that he could have searched specifically for ‘squirting videos’ and said that he had done that at other times.408 469 I agree with the submission made by the prosecutor that the accused’s evidence about this video was very difficult to follow. My overall impression of his evidence, on the topic of the video in Exhibit P8, was that the evidence was tailored, and poorly so, to attempt to provide an explanation, other than the most likely, or obvious reason, for why he would watch a video entitled ‘Dad Plays with Teen Daughter’. The most likely reason someone would watch such a video and save a screenshot of it, is because that person had a sexual interest in viewing a video, on an extreme pornography website, depicting a dad sexually playing with his teenage daughter. 470 I do not accept the accused’s explanation(s) for why he watched the video in Exhibit P8 and/or why he searched on Heavy-R.com using the keywords, ‘daughter forced’, ‘sleepy daughter’ or ‘daughter molested’. 471 Similarly, I do not accept the accused’s evidence as to what he claimed the video in Exhibit P8 showed. The accused initially gave evidence that all the video showed was a woman lying on her back masturbating and a man masturbating just off camera. He said the title of the video was misleading and the man did not actually do anything. 472 Thereafter the accused was cross-examined in more detail about what the video may have shown, and denied, categorically, that the male touched the female’s vagina or inserted his penis in her vagina. However, when questioned in a manner which suggested there was a possibility the Court may be shown the video, the accused’s evidence noticeably changed. He was no longer confident about what that video showed, stating it was two to three years since he had watched it. He backed away from his previous position that the video definitely did not show the male touching the ‘daughter’ in the video. 473 This was one of several examples where the accused changed his evidence, when either confronted with evidence to the contrary, or when it was possible he may be confronted with evidence to the contrary. 474 I am satisfied that the initial evidence given by the accused as to what that video depicted, was neither reliable nor credible. 475 The accused watched that video in March 2023 at a time when he was watching hundreds of pornographic videos. He claimed to have simply ‘skipped through it’ to see if it showed squirting, in circumstances where it did not contain 408 T 255.29-256.32. -- 80 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 79 the actress he was looking for and the male actor was ‘off screen’. If that is correct, it is most unlikely the accused would now have an accurate recollection of what that video depicted. 476 Perhaps more importantly, the video was on Heavy-R.com, a hardcore pornography website, which marketed itself as containing content of the most depraved and filthy kind. The accused’s description of the content of that video did not meet that description. 477 Further, I do not accept the accused’s evidence as to why he saved a screenshot of the image, Exhibit P8, on his phone (that is, either it was a mistake because of the sensitivity of the Samsung phone, or more likely, that he wanted to remind himself of that website name). 478 It was an agreed fact that the accused entered multiple search terms on the Heavy-R.com website between 4:08am and 4:25am on 23 March 2023, that is, prior to the accused watching this particular video (which he simply skipped through, it not containing the female actress he was looking for). It simply makes no sense for the accused to choose to screenshot that particular image, to save that website name, in such circumstances. There were plenty of earlier opportunities for him to do so. 479 The accused was also cross-examined about the content of other videos watched by him, on Heavy-R.com, on 23 March 2023. For the same reasons as outlined above, I reject the accused’s evidence that the search for ‘sleepy daughter’ simply produced a sleeping woman being woken by foot play. 480 When the evidence the accused gave on the topic of his pornography use, in general, is carefully considered, and attempts made to unravel its various internal inconsistencies, this further demonstrates why the Court is unable to accept the accused as either a credible or reliable witness. Summary 481 I have outlined in detail certain aspects of the accused’s evidence which were of particular concern to me and reflected poorly on him. When his evidence is considered as a whole, it demonstrates, and I find, that he was neither a credible, nor a reliable witness. I do not accept the accused’s evidence, unless it is supported by other evidence that I do accept. 482 It is not for the accused to prove, or disprove, anything. The accused bears no onus. My decision not to accept him as credible or reliable does not mean that the charges are proved. It remains necessary, putting his account to one side, for me to consider whether, as to either count, the prosecution has proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. -- 81 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 80 Analysis of prosecution lay and police witnesses GM’s evidence 483 GM’s evidence was confined to her observations of the accused, and his mobility, during the period when he was living in the caravan. It was further confined to what she had seen of his mobility during that period, when he visited her home, to see his daughters. 484 GM gave her evidence in an open and honest manner. She readily acknowledged that she had seen the accused struggle with back pain, which affected his mobility and his ability to play with his youngest daughter, during that period. She did not seek to understate the effect of his disability. 485 I am satisfied that GM was both an honest and reliable witness. 486 GM’s evidence was essentially unchallenged. I accept that evidence. BM’s evidence 487 BM presented as an honest witness, who was doing his best to provide an accurate account to the Court of what he could remember of the occasion he took AM shooting with him on Thursday 22 June 2023, being the day after the alleged offending in count 1. 488 I accept the evidence of both AM and BM that this was the first time BM took AM shooting. I also accept BM’s evidence that he only ever attended at the accused’s parents’ house on that particular day. 489 Those two reasons may assist BM to remember this particular occasion, from the other time he took AM shooting, or from other times he went on an outing, alone, with AM, at or around the same time. However, it is important to remember that other than this being the first time MBM took AM to his shooting club, there was nothing particularly important or different or memorable about the day from BM’s perspective. One may think that the most memorable part of that day for BM would be what occurred at the shooting club, being the purpose of the outing, rather than the ancillary details of what occurred before and after. 490 BM’s evidence about this day differed in two aspects to that given by AM. 491 The first related to whether the accused came to the gate, with AM, when BM collected her from his parents’ house. BM gave evidence that he pulled into the driveway, AM came out through the double gates, and they drove off together. He could not recall anyone else being with AM. 492 Although there was a slight difference in the evidence given by AM and the accused, both gave evidence that the accused was at the gates, when BM collected AM. AM agreed with a proposition put to her that the accused accompanied her to the gates and she hugged him goodbye, before leaving with BM. The accused gave -- 82 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 81 evidence that AM had run through the house to greet BM, but that he had waved her off from the gates. 493 It is unlikely that AM ran through the house to greet BM, as described by the accused. There was simply no need for her to do that. The shortest path to greet BM was via the driveway and through the double gates. It is more likely, and I find, that AM left the property through those double gates. 494 AM agreed that the accused was with her at the gates. Notwithstanding AM’s acknowledged memory difficulties,409 I prefer and accept her evidence to this effect, rather than BM’s evidence (that is, that he could not recall anyone else being at the gates with AM). 495 It is unsurprising that BM’s recollection of the precise circumstances of what occurred at the time he collected AM may be somewhat inaccurate, this being peripheral to the purpose of the occasion. 496 The other aspect of BM’s evidence which differed from AM’s evidence was his evidence that they did not have lunch together that day, and that after leaving the club at around 11:00am, he drove AM home to GM’s house. 497 I agree with the submission made by counsel for the accused, that AM’s recollection of experiencing pain, when she first went to the toilet after the alleged offending in count 1, was part of the core narrative of her recollection of the offending. It was not merely an ancillary or peripheral matter. She mentioned it twice during the AM interview and, when doing so, physically appeared to relive the pain she remembered. 498 AM recalled that she was having lunch with BM at a ‘little café thing’, when she went to the toilet and experienced that pain. 499 BM gave evidence that there were a few other occasions that he had taken AM out and they had had lunch at a bakery, but that he had not done so that day. 500 I have given this evidence very careful consideration. What occurred after BM and AM left the shooting club was of little moment to BM, but, on AM’s evidence, of significance to her, insofar as it was during lunch, that she went to the toilet and experienced pain in her vagina when urinating. 501 For reasons that will follow, I am satisfied that AM is not lying about the pain she felt, going to the toilet. It is possible that AM’s recollection of where she was, when she first went to the toilet that day, is inaccurate. Alternatively, it is possible that BM is now mistaken in his recollection that he did not take AM out to lunch that day. AM gave evidence that she had gone shooting with BM twice. 409 See discussion below. -- 83 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 82 I accept that evidence. Although BM was not questioned about this, he may well be confusing the two occasions. 502 Again, notwithstanding AM’s acknowledged memory difficulties, I prefer and accept AM’s evidence, namely that BM did take her out for lunch, after they went shooting together, on 22 June 2023. If I am wrong about, I am satisfied that it was the sensation of pain, while first urinating the day after the alleged offending in count 1, which formed part of the core narrative of AM’s account of that offending, rather than the location of that toilet. Even if AM is now mistaken in terms of where she was when she went to the toilet, that does not otherwise cause me to doubt the credibility and reliability of her evidence that she felt pain in her vagina when she first went to the toilet, the day after the offending in count 1 or to doubt the credibility and reliability of her account of the alleged offending. DA’s evidence 503 DA was aged 18 at the time she gave her evidence. My impression of DA was that she was an honest witness. However, I consider it likely that aspects of her evidence were unreliable (in terms of her recollection of the timing of various matters), likely due to the passage of time. 504 DA’s evidence was confined to matters relating to AM’s initial complaint of the offending in each count. 505 I am satisfied, from the evidence given by AM and DA (and LT), that AM did disclose the alleged offending in count 1 to both DA and LT at the Tea Tree Plaza Food Court. I accept DA’s evidence that this occurred on or about 21 July 2023, as they were celebrating her 16th birthday. 506 There was a difference in the evidence given by AM and DA as to the length of time they had been friends, prior to this occasion. DA gave evidence that she first had contact with AM in June or July 2023 and that they would contact each other via Instagram and hang out together. AM said she had been friends with DA and hung out with her for about six months before the occasion at the Food Court. 507 I prefer and accept AM’s evidence as to the length of time she had been friends with DA prior to that occasion. The very fact that DA chose to celebrate her birthday with AM suggests they had formed a relatively close friendship, much more likely to have been on foot for several months before then, rather than only a few weeks. 508 Another point of difference in the evidence given by AM and DA related to whether there was a second conversation, in person, between DA and AM, after the occasion at the Food Court, but before DA went to the police, at which time AM provided further details by way of elaboration as to the offending in count 1. DA gave evidence of such a conversation occurring at GM’s house, possibly in the kitchen. -- 84 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 83 509 AM did not give any evidence of any such conversation. Having said that, AM was never questioned, either during the AM interview, her further evidence- in-chief or in cross-examination, as to whether she had any further conversation with DA of this type. 510 DA gave evidence that during this second conversation, AM told her that her father had got on top of her and tried to have sex with her and that it had hurt to go to the toilet the next day. 511 I have carefully considered this evidence. It is possible that the conversation DA described in fact occurred after she went to the police station on 11 August 2023, but she is mistaken about its timing. One can readily envisage AM and DA speaking about the matter together, in private, after they had both gone to the police station that day. 512 Alternatively, it is possible that there was such a conversation, as described by DA and that had AM been specifically asked about it, she would have agreed that such a conversation occurred. It is not the case that AM denied any such conversation. The questions asked of AM about what she had told DA (and LT) about the offending were all specifically directed to what she had told them about it, at the Food Court. 513 Insofar as there is any difference in that aspect of DA’s evidence and the evidence given by AM, it does not cause me to otherwise doubt AM’s credibility and reliability generally. 514 There was also a difference in the evidence given by DA and AM as to what AM said, at the Food Court, in terms of the offending. DA gave evidence that AM had told them she had been sexually assaulted by her father and had not gone into further detail. AM said she told them her father had attempted to have sex with her but did not go into further detail. In cross-examination she agreed that she had said something along the lines of ‘[the accused] had either tried to force himself into me or onto me’ but had given no further details. 515 Both DA and LT said that AM had told them she had been sexually assaulted by her father. However, as to precisely what words were said by AM, to convey that message (namely, that she had been sexually assaulted by her father), I prefer and accept AM’s evidence, to that of DA and LT. 516 This was a far more important and memorable occasion for AM than for DA and LT. It was the first time she had told anyone about the alleged offending. She was talking about something her father had done to her. 517 DA described AM as appearing relieved at having told someone but was not crying or upset. I accept that evidence, it being consistent with what AM said, that is, that she was relieved at having been able to tell someone about the offending. -- 85 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 84 518 DA also gave evidence that she had met up with AM on Wednesday 9 August 2023, and that AM was intending to see her father that night. I accept DA’s evidence to this effect. I also accept her evidence that she contacted AM the next day, at which time AM told her the visit had gone well.410 DA has no reason to lie about this and I consider it is unlikely she is mistaken, given this occurred the day before DA went to the police station. It is also consistent with what DA wrote in her message to AM on 11 August 2023, that is, ‘... I know notbing (sic) has happened in a while ...’.411 LT’s evidence 519 LT gave very brief evidence of what he recalled about the conversation at the Tea Tree Plaza Food Court. He was a very honest witness. 520 LT had a recollection of AM referring to ‘multiple’ occasions of sexual assault by her father during that conversation, including an occasion about a week before, at her dad’s house. He was quite adamant that AM had referred to more than one occasion of sexual assault. 521 I am satisfied that LT is honestly mistaken about this. 522 For the same reasons as previously stated at paragraphs 515 and 516, I accept AM’s evidence as to what she said, during that conversation, about the alleged offending. I consider that LT’s recollection of precisely what was said has been affected by the passage of time. 523 However, even if LT’s evidence is accurate and AM did say words to the effect that her father had sexually assaulted her more than once, that is not necessarily inconsistent with AM’s evidence. AM told Officer Dawson that there were other occasions when her father had touched her on the boobs or the vagina. She could not recall the details of such occasions but said that they had occurred between the alleged offending in counts 1 and 2 and about one to two weeks apart. 524 The conversation at the Food Court occurred on or about 21 July 2023. Count 1 is alleged to have occurred on 21 June 2023. Count 2 is alleged to have occurred on 9 August 2023. If AM did refer to sexual assaults during the conversation at the Food Court, that does not, in any event, affect my assessment of the credibility and reliability of her account of the alleged offending. 410 Noting AM was never questioned about this, such that she did not have an opportunity to say whether this had happened or why she had said what she did. 411 Exhibit P6 at p 1. -- 86 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 85 Analysis of AM’s evidence General observations 525 AM’s evidence is critical to the prosecution case as to each count and as such I have scrutinised it with great care. As to each count, I must be satisfied that her evidence as to the alleged offending is not only honest, but reliable. 526 AM was aged 17 years and nine months at the time she gave the AM interview and 19 years and 10 months at the time of trial. 527 There were various aspects of AM’s evidence which were the subject of criticism by defence counsel. I have carefully considered each of those criticisms in my assessment of the credibility and reliability of AM’s evidence. I will deal with those criticisms individually hereunder. 528 Notwithstanding those criticisms, AM impressed me as being a very honest witness. Her account of the offending in each instance was, in most respects, consistent throughout the AM interview and her evidence. She did not seek to exaggerate any of the accused’s conduct and tried to confine her evidence to what she actually remembered, rather than simply guessing. 529 In demeanour, AM generally presented in a calm and quiet manner, albeit she appeared noticeably distressed and uncomfortable when required to provide details of the alleged offending. At no time did she present as angry, vengeful or vindictive. 530 AM told Officer Dawson that she was slow and did not have a good memory because she suffered from a chromosome deletion.412 There was no other evidence before the Court as to this condition, or its possible impact on AM’s memory. 531 Despite this, AM’s memory of the core features of the offending, in each instance, was consistent. As such, while AM’s recollection of certain peripheral matters may contain some inaccuracies, I am satisfied that her memory as to the core details of the alleged offending in both counts 1 and 2, is both accurate and reliable. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful that AM acknowledged having consumed both alcohol and cannabis prior to the alleged offending in count 1. However, she described having consumed only one can of rum and coke and a ‘small nugget’ of weed that night, in circumstances where she had previously consumed both alcohol and cannabis. She described feeling drowsy and relaxed but not lightheaded or otherwise uncertain or unsure of her surroundings. There was no evidence to support a finding that she was intoxicated, let alone intoxicated to such an extent that her memory of what occurred was rendered unreliable. 412 MFIP2 at [488]-[490]. -- 87 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 86 532 I am satisfied as to the reliability of AM’s account of the offending in each count. I am satisfied that she is not lying about the offending in either count, nor is she mistaken about it, nor has she imagined it or dreamt it. 533 I provide further reasons below as to why I am so satisfied. Motive to lie 534 The accused’s evidence about the alleged argument he claimed to have had with AM, the night before she first went shooting with BM, was relied upon as providing a potential motive for AM to lie about the offending. 535 AM had no memory of any argument of the type described by the accused. Although AM was not asked to clarify if what she meant by that was, there was no such argument, or she simply could not remember if there was (or was not) any argument, the fact is, the only evidence of that argument came from the accused. As previously stated, I have serious concerns about the credibility and reliability of the accused’s evidence in general. His evidence was clearly tailored to present a false picture to the Court as to the impossibility of the offending and to present himself in the best possible light. 536 I do not accept the accused’s evidence that there was any such argument. 537 If there was such an argument, I reject, beyond reasonable doubt, that this gave AM a motive to lie about the alleged offending. 538 On the accused’s own evidence, the day after this argument, AM hugged him before she left to go shooting. On the accused’s version of events, she contacted him later that night, to let him know how her day had gone and ask if she could stay on the Friday. He claimed she had returned to see and stay with him at the caravan two days later, on the Friday and Saturday night.413 Such behaviour is totally inconsistent with AM being so upset about the alleged argument that she subsequently concocted false allegations of sexual abuse against the accused. 539 AM did not complain to anyone about the alleged offending until around 21 July 2023 and the alleged offending was not reported to police until 11 August 2023. It makes no sense for AM to wait that time to complain and/or report the alleged offending if she is lying about it because of this argument. 540 Furthermore, AM did not initiate the report of the offending to police. DA was at the police station, reporting the alleged offending, at the time she and AM exchanged the messages in Exhibit P6. It is clear from those messages, and I find, that AM did not ask DA to make the report and was shocked to hear what she had done. She told her DA not to tell the police and said, ‘I can’t lose both my parents ... It’ll fucking kill me’. She clearly did not initiate the police report. She 413 T 192.6-193.3, noting that AM was not questioned about this during her evidence. -- 88 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 87 only spoke to police about the alleged offending because DA’s actions prompted her to do so.414 541 I reject any suggestion that AM had a motive to lie about the alleged offending arising from the argument as described by the accused. 542 Of course, a witness can lie for many reasons. The fact that I reject there being any specific motive to lie does not mean AM is telling the truth. It remains for me to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that AM’s account of the alleged offending, in each count, is both truthful and reliable. Inconsistencies in account 543 I refer to and repeat my previous discussion and findings with respect to the inconsistency in the evidence given by AM and BM about whether they had lunch together after they went shooting. 544 There was an internal inconsistency in AM’s evidence as to what she was wearing at the time of the alleged offending in count 1. AM told Officer Dawson in the AM interview that she had been wearing a long sleeve t-shirt, underwear and pink pyjama shorts with flowers on them at the time of this alleged offending. In cross-examination, conducted over two years later, when asked the question, ‘And you’d been wearing trackpants on that occasion, had you’, AM responded ‘yes’.415 545 This is the only inconsistency in AM’s evidence as to the details pertaining to what occurred, in the caravan, at the time of the alleged offending in count 1. 546 Over two years had passed between the time of the AM interview and her cross-examination which occurred on 9 September 2025. This was not a case where AM had just recounted the details of the circumstances of the alleged offending during examination-in-chief. 547 AM gave evidence that her pants and underwear were already removed at the time of the alleged offending in count 1 and that she did not know how they were removed. As such, precisely what she was wearing on her bottom half, that night, does not form an integral part of the alleged offending and only related to a peripheral matter. What was important was that she woke up, with no clothing on her bottom half, and her father was on top of her, with his bare penis pushing against her vagina. 548 AM acknowledged that her memory was not perfect. She also gave evidence that she was wearing trackpants at the time of the offending in count 2. I am satisfied that when AM effectively agreed with a proposition put to her in cross- 414 Exhibit P6 at p 2. 415 T 87.18-20. Noting AM also gave evidence in cross-examination that it was cold in the caravan and if it was really cold she would sleep with a jumper over her t-shirt. However, she did not give evidence that she was wearing a jumper at the time of this alleged offending. -- 89 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 88 examination that she was wearing trackpants at the time of the alleged offending in count 1, that she was mistaken having regard to the passage of time. However, having regard to the circumstances and all of the evidence, this does not otherwise cause me to have a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness and accuracy of AM’s account of what occurred at the time of the alleged offending in count 1, or her evidence generally. 549 Counsel for the accused submitted there was also an inconsistency in AM’s evidence as to what she was wearing at the time of the alleged offending in count 2. That submission was based on the fact that AM said, in cross-examination, she could now not recall what she was wearing at that time. In the AM interview, she described wearing green trackpants, at the time of the alleged offending in count 2. 550 Given the passage of time between the AM interview and trial, I am satisfied that when AM said she could not recall what she was wearing at that time, she was simply being honest and truthful with the Court. This was an insignificant, peripheral aspect of the alleged offending in count 2. What was important was that she woke to the accused rubbing her vagina on top of her clothing. Precisely what that clothing was, was not important. 551 This very minor inconsistency does not otherwise cause me to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of AM’s account as to the alleged offending in count 2, or of her evidence generally. Compelling account or implausible account? 552 Counsel for the accused submitted that the alleged offending as described by AM in each count, was implausible, and improbable, for several different reasons. 553 The first argument related to the applicant’s physical capacity to commit the alleged offending, as a result of the impact of his back injury. 554 I refer to my previous findings at paragraphs 428 to 438. 555 I am satisfied that the accused was physically capable of undertaking the various movements described by AM as constituting each alleged offence (and its immediate aftermath). 556 The second argument related to the inherent unlikelihood of AM only waking up, at the time of the alleged offending in count 1, when the accused was already on top of her, trying to insert his penis in her vagina. It was submitted that it was simply impossible that the accused would have been able to remove the bottom half of AM’s clothing and climb on top of her, without waking her. 557 AM did not know how her pants and underwear were removed or when they were removed. 558 I agree that if the accused was already on top of AM when he tried to remove these garments, it is unlikely she would have slept through him both climbing on -- 90 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 89 to the couch and on top of her and attempting to remove her clothing thereafter. However, if the accused first removed any bed covers, then carefully removed AM’s pants and underwear, and then climbed on top of her, it is certainly foreseeable that it was the final action which woke her. What AM said she woke to, was the accused on top of her with his penis right next to her vagina. AM said she had consumed both alcohol and cannabis before she went to sleep that night. Although there was no expert evidence as to the possible effect of the consumption of such substances on AM, it is common knowledge that cannabis has a sedating effect. AM also gave evidence that she felt really drowsy and relaxed before she went to sleep that night. I accept that evidence. 559 I am satisfied that AM’s account of only waking up, once the accused was on top of her, as she described, is plausible, in all of the circumstances. I am also satisfied that the accused was physically capable of removing AM’s pants and briefs. 560 AM’s account of the second alleged offence did not include any allegation that the accused removed her clothing. Rather, she claimed she woke up with the accused on top of her, rubbing her vagina, in aggressive circles, on top of her clothing. I am satisfied that what AM described in this respect is plausible. 561 There was no evidence that at any time prior to the alleged offending in count 1, the accused had touched AM inappropriately or groomed her in anyway (for example, by asking her to watch pornography with him). AM was 17. She was not a young child. The caravan was located in relatively close proximity to the house, where others were present. The accused could not have known how AM would react to the alleged offending and there must have been a very real risk that she would call out, or run inside and complain, or complain the next day to either BM or GM. It was submitted that in these circumstances, it was simply implausible that the accused would participate in such brazen offending, without at least ‘testing the waters’. 562 As previously stated, I am satisfied that the accused has exaggerated the extent to which noise from within the caravan could be heard from inside the house. The alleged offending in each instance occurred in winter. I do not accept the accused’s uncorroborated evidence that his brother always slept with his window open. I am satisfied the caravan door was shut. Although the back door of the house was left unlocked, there was no evidence that the door, itself, was left wide open or any evidence as to what the back door was made of. 563 The offending occurred on the couch, which was at the far end of the caravan, in terms of its proximity to the accused’s brother’s bedroom. AM gave unchallenged evidence that the accused’s parents, brother and nephew were all smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol the evening prior to the alleged offending in count 1. The only house member who did not participate in such activities was the accused’s nephew’s girlfriend, Caitlyn. I assume Caitlyn shared a bedroom with the accused’s nephew, being further away from the caravan, and closer to the -- 91 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 90 front of the house. The offending occurred late at night and therefore at a time when the occupants in the house were likely to be asleep themselves. 564 I accept AM’s evidence that whether someone inside the house could hear what was going on in the caravan, depended on how loud the noise was, in the caravan. I am satisfied that if AM had screamed at any time, it is not necessarily the case that anyone inside the house would have heard and/or reacted to that scream. AM described waking in pain and going ‘ouch’ like ‘what the fuck’ as it was painful. She described the accused saying ‘ssssshhh’ and saying ‘it’s okay, it’s okay, not doing anything, this is all I will do’.416 I am satisfied that by using those words, he was not only trying to make sure AM remained quiet but was also attempting to reassure and/or convince her that what he was not doing was nothing to be concerned about. 565 Had she screamed, on AM’s account, the accused was positioned in such a way that I am satisfied he could have put his hand over the top of her mouth, to muffle any scream. 566 While of course there was a risk that the offending would be detected, or that AM may have complained thereafter, I note the observations made by Doyle CJ in R v Corrigan:417 … it is an unfortunate fact that it is not uncommon for sexual offences involving children and young people to be committed in circumstances in which a dispassionate observer would think an attempt to commit the offence would be unlikely because of the risk of detection. This does not mean that the jury, or the Court on appeal, is to suspend judgment and to consider the facts on the basis that anything is possible or plausible. But, on the other hand, the Court should be careful before it treats evidence of a sexual offence as inherently implausible because the court would not have expected the offender to commit the offence in the circumstances described. 567 In considering the argument that it was inherently unlikely that the accused would commit the alleged offending in count 1, not knowing how AM would respond, it is also important to consider precisely what it was that AM alleged the accused did and said during that alleged offending. 568 AM’s evidence was that at no time did the accused try to fully insert his penis in her vagina. Rather, she was very careful to say that he only went as far as the barrier, and that he did not go further because he knew she was a virgin. AM’s account of what the accused said to her afterwards, namely ‘it’s okay, it’s okay, not doing anything, this is all I will do’ is also consistent with him understating what he had done to her and reassuring her that what he was doing was not bad. She said he gave her a hug afterwards and reassured her that nothing bad had happened. In these circumstances, it could be said that by the alleged offending in 416 MFIP2 at line 312. 417 (1998) 74 SASR 454 at [468]. -- 92 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 91 count 1, the accused was ‘testing the waters’, or potentially grooming AM for any alleged abuse which occurred thereafter. 569 The accused could not have known that AM had spoken to DA and LT about the alleged offending in count 1 on or about 21 July 2023. The fact AM did not tell family members, or the police, about that alleged offending, may have emboldened the accused to commit the alleged offending in count 2. 570 During cross-examination, AM acknowledged that she could have gone into the house, through the unlocked back door, after the offending in either instance, to seek refuge away from the accused (for example by sleeping on the couch in the lounge room) or to tell someone within the house what had happened. AM acknowledged that she trusted all of the people who were living in the accused’s parents’ house at that time. Instead, after each alleged offence, she had stayed in the caravan with the accused and simply gone back to sleep on the couch. 571 AM said she had not gone into the house as it was the middle of the night. She explained that she had not told anyone at the house about the alleged offending, in either instance, despite having the opportunity to do so, because she was terrified, they were his family and she did not think they would believe her. 572 I accept AM’s evidence to this effect. There is simply no rulebook as to how an alleged victim of sexual abuse will respond, particularly in circumstances where the alleged abuser is your father. 573 I accept AM’s evidence as to why she did not seek refuge and/or complain to anyone at the accused’s parents’ house, after the alleged offending in either count. 574 AM acknowledged that she had her mobile phone with her on the night of the alleged offending in count 1 and therefore could have called someone about the alleged offending but did not. She also acknowledged that she had continued to go back to visit and stay with her father, after the alleged offending in count 1, notwithstanding it was her choice whether to do so and she was under no pressure from the accused to do so. As to why, she explained, ‘Because I had to act as if everything was okay’.418 575 It is important to remember that AM was already estranged from her mother at the time of the alleged offending. There was evidence that there was an Intervention Order in place, during the relevant period, which prevented AM’s mother from having any contact with her.419 As such, during the relevant period, the accused was, in effect, the only parent AM had left. This context is important in considering why it was that AM acted the way she did after the alleged offending in count 1 and count 2. It is also important in understanding the accused’s mindset 418 T 93.17. 419 T 86.5-12. -- 93 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 92 at the relevant time. He must have known how important he was to AM, at that time. 576 Further, what AM wrote to DA in the messages they exchanged on 11 August 2023 is important. She urged DA not to say anything to the police because ‘I can’t lose both my parents’.420 This is compelling evidence. It explains why AM not only did not make a formal complaint earlier but why she continued to see her father after the alleged offending in count 1 and to act as if nothing had happened. 577 I accept AM’s evidence as to why she continued to see and stay with the accused after the alleged offending in count 1. 578 Having carefully considered the submissions made by defence, and all of the evidence, I am satisfied that AM’s account of the offending in each count is plausible. 579 The prosecutor submitted that rather than being implausible, AM’s account was compelling, insofar as the way she described the offending, and how she felt at the time of the offending, was consistent with her recounting real, lived, events. 580 When describing the offending in count 1 to Officer Dawson, AM recalled waking up in pain and gripping her bed and the blanket. She recalled groaning in pain and confirmed at trial that such pain was in her vagina, where the entrance was. She said, several times, that it ‘bloody hurt’. She also told Officer Dawson about the pain she felt the next day when she went to the toilet. 581 When recounting that pain, in each instance, AM’s demeanour was very different to her overall presentation during the AM interview. She was quite calm throughout the AM interview but became animated when describing the pain she had felt. How she reacted was consistent with her remembering and reliving the sensation of that pain. 582 When AM described to Officer Dawson how the accused had touched her at the time of the alleged offending in count 2, she attempted to demonstrate the aggressive, circular movements he had made with his hand. Again, my overall impression, watching AM’s evidence, was that what she was describing was something which had actually happened to her. 583 As such, there were important aspects of AM’s account of each alleged offence, which were compelling. Complaint evidence 584 I refer to my earlier observations and findings about the circumstances in which AM first told DA and LT about the alleged offending in count 1. 420 Exhibit P6 at p 2. -- 94 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 93 585 Contrary to the submissions made by counsel for the accused, I am satisfied that making this complaint in the terms that she did, and to whom she did, does demonstrate some consistency in AM’s conduct. 586 I have already explained why I accept AM’s evidence as why she did not tell anyone in her family (or the accused’s family) about the alleged offending. 587 DA was a friend of equivalent age to AM. Although AM had never previously met LT before the occasion at the Food Court, AM gave evidence that she told them about the offending, at that time, as she felt comfortable with them both, they gave off a trusting vibe and they felt warm and welcoming. I accept that evidence. 588 The fact the disclosure was made in a Food Court and at a time when AM, DA and LT were celebrating DA’s birthday may, on its face, seem somewhat unusual. However, AM was a teenage girl, who was estranged from her mother and who, on her account had been sexually abused by her father. AM said that what she said about the offending, ‘just slipped it out’. Similarly, DA said that AM told them about the alleged offending, ‘all of a sudden’. 589 I accept AM’s evidence, supported by DA, that AM’s immediate response to telling them about the alleged offending, was a sense of relief. The fact she did not cry or appear upset is, in my view irrelevant. I am satisfied that AM told DA and LT about the alleged offending at that time, as it was a time when she felt comfortable and safe, and was wanting to tell someone what had happened, and was relieved to have done so. 590 This was about a month after the alleged offending in count 1. 591 AM gave evidence that she told DA and LT that her father had attempted to have sex with her. I consider this to be consistent with her evidence as to the nature of the alleged offending in count 1. AM still considered herself a virgin after that alleged offending, because, in her words, the accused had only gone as far as the ‘barrier’ or the ‘entrance’ to the vagina, he had not gone any further. 592 If, as both DA and LT recalled, AM simply told them that her father had sexually assaulted her, in my view, this also demonstrates some degree of consistency in terms of the content of the complaint. It is not the case that what AM described to DA and LT was of an entirely different sexual act, to that described in her evidence, or a sexual act perpetuated against her by someone else. 593 It is unrealistic to expect someone to recall, with precision, the words used by another person (and them) in a conversation which occurred over two years ago, or indeed, in the much more recent past. What people remember from a conversation is the gist of what was said. What DA and LT recalled was said is consistent with the allegation in count 1 in any event – that is – that AM’s father had sexually assaulted her. -- 95 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 94 594 I am satisfied that AM’s initial complaint of the offending in count 1 to DA and LT demonstrates some degree of consistency of conduct on her part, both as to who she told, when she told them and what she told them. However, the importance of this evidence is limited in any event, in circumstances where this disclosure occurred only a few weeks prior AM giving a detailed statement of the alleged offending to police. Further, this is not a case where years passed before any complaint was made of the alleged offending. 595 As previously stated, I accept DA’s evidence that when she contacted AM on Thursday 10 August 2023, AM told her that her visit with the accused, the previous night, had gone well. This was the occasion of the alleged offending in count 2. 596 AM was not questioned as to why (or if) she had said this to DA. 597 However, the messages exchanged between DA and AM on 11 August 2023 are informative. It is clear from those messages and by the fact that DA went to the police station on 11 August 2023, that DA was very worried about AM, after learning of the abuse during the conversation at the Food Court. She knew that AM was continuing to visit her father. She clearly felt concerned to sit back and do nothing, knowing the situation that AM was in. It is extremely unlikely that DA would not have expressed these concerns, in some way, to AM, before she went to the police on 11 August 2023. 598 I am satisfied from the messages in Exhibit P6 and from AM’s evidence, that she was scared to report the offending because she did not want to lose her father, having already lost her mother. In such circumstances, notwithstanding she had told DA and LT about the offending, it is understandable why she would avoid disclosing any further alleged abuse to either of them. She was clearly uncomfortable talking about the alleged abuse. She had already told someone about the fact of the abuse. As a matter of commonsense, telling either of them about any further abuse, increased the likelihood of others finding out about it, either via gossip or by what ultimately occurred, that is, DA telling her mother and then taking matters into her own hands and going to the police about it. 599 As such, the fact that AM lied to DA about things having gone well when she visited the accused on 9 August 2023 does not cause me to otherwise have any reasonable doubt about her veracity generally, or specifically as to the alleged offending in either count. 600 AM disclosed the alleged offending in count 2 to DA in the messages they exchanged on 11 August 2023. I disagree with the submission made that what AM said about that offending at that time was inconsistent with her evidence and/or not referrable to that alleged offending. 601 What AM told DA was:421 421 Exhibit P6 at p 3. -- 96 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 95 He basically pinned me down and was touching me. In the middle of the night. The Wednesday just passed (sic) ... I basically yelled at him and he got off me and begged to touch me so he could get off. 602 AM gave evidence that she woke up, during the night, with the accused right on top of her. He was touching her ‘down there’ very forcefully and aggressively, later clarified to be on her vagina, over her clothing.422 She gave evidence that thereafter he had knelt beside her and asked if he could ‘just touch (her) so he can get off”.423 603 There is no doubt that what AM described to DA in those text messages is conduct referrable to the alleged offending in count 2. I disagree that the accounts are inconsistent. The fact slightly different words were used is irrelevant. 604 Further, I accept AM’s evidence as to why she told DA, during those messages, about that alleged offending. By this time, DA was already at the police station. AM knew it was inevitable she would have to talk to the police about the alleged offending. I accept her evidence that she told DA about the alleged offending in count 2 because she trusted her and that it was the right thing to do as she knew, that in those circumstances, she would have to talk to the police about that second incident, as well as the first. 605 I am satisfied AM’s initial complaint to DA about the alleged offending in count 2 demonstrates a degree of consistency of conduct as to what she told DA about that alleged offending, who she told and when she told her. Improbability reasoning 606 AM did not know what was on the accused’s mobile phone. 607 I disagree with the submissions made by counsel for the accused that all the evidence demonstrated was that the accused regularly looked at legal adult pornography and/or that there was nothing in the material that he either searched for or watched that was striking in its similarity to the offending as described by AM. 608 As previously stated, although the pornography watched (and searched for) by the accused was legal pornography, and clearly there is a market for it, most people would consider it depraved for a man, with a teenage daughter, to search for pornography using search terms such as ‘daughter forced’ or ‘daughter molested’ or ‘daughter+destroyed’, or ‘helping+my+daughter+cum’. 609 There was no dispute that the accused had searched on his mobile phone using the Samsung Internet Browser, for pornography using search terms such as ‘vergin+daughter’, ‘daughters+first-time’, ‘dad+daughter+share+bed’, 422 MFIP2 at lines 78-86, 116-118. 423 Ibid at line 88. -- 97 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 96 ‘daughter+sleeping’ and ‘waking+up+daughter’. These search terms demonstrate a specificity in terms of the content searched, relevant to the circumstances of the alleged offending. The accused made many other searches for pornographic material of a similar nature. 610 Although there was no evidence as to precisely when the specific searches referred to in the previous paragraph were made, it was an agreed fact that the accused was the only user of the mobile phone and commenced using it around 22 July 2022.424 It was also an agreed fact that in certain circumstances, the search history for Samsung Internet Browser, automatically deletes after 90 days. As such, those specific searches were made by the accused within approximately 13 months of the alleged offending but possibly within 90 days of the police assessing the data on that phone in August 2023. 611 On 6 August 2023, the accused accessed the video ‘Teen Moans When Daddy Fucks her on the Couch’. On 8, 9 and 10 August 2023, the accused accessed the video ‘POV: Daddy Fucks me before Work’. This is within days (if not on the day) of the alleged offending in count 2. While these videos contain more extreme content than the act described by AM as comprising the alleged offending in count 2, the fact is, they depict sexual activity apparently between a dad and daughter and as to the first video, apparently between a dad and his teenage daughter. 612 Although the accused did not search using the term ‘biological daughter’, he conducted numerous searches using both the terms ‘daughter and ‘step-daughter’, indicative of there being some differentiation between those terms and what search results they would likely produce. 613 Further, while the evidence falls short of establishing that in close proximity in time to the offending in count 1, the accused either watched a video depicting sexual activity of the same type she described in that offending and/or searched for pornography using terminology specific to that alleged offending, I am satisfied that he routinely searched for and watched pornography, containing similar content, at the time he was living in the caravan. The accused acknowledged he had a sexual interest in daddy/daughter pornography during the relevant period. AM did not know about this sexual interest. 614 The fact the accused had a sexual interest in watching daddy/daughter pornography and a propensity to watch such pornography, does not necessarily mean he also had a sexual interest in his daughter and/or that he had any propensity to act on any such sexual interest with AM. The evidence was not admitted for such a purpose and I have not used it in that way. 615 However, it is most improbable that AM, ignorant of the fact that the accused’s mobile phone contained this material, or of the fact that he had a sexual interest in such pornography, would fabricate an account of him engaging in the 424 Exhibit P14 at [8]-[9]. -- 98 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 97 same type of sexual activity with her – that is - sexual activity with her, while she was asleep, on a couch, in the caravan and/or waking her up by attempting to engage in sexual activity with her. 616 At the very least, it is improbable that AM, ignorant of the fact that on 8, 9 and 10 August 2023, the accused had watched a pornographic video entitled ‘Teen Moans While Daddy Fucks her on the Couch’, would, on 11 August 2023, fabricate an account of the accused waking her up on 9 August 2023, by climbing on top of her, while she was sleeping on the couch, and touching her on her vagina, with a view to deriving sexual pleasure from such activity. 617 Further, there was no evidence that AM knew that it was several months since the accused had last engaged in sexual activity with another person as at the time of the alleged offending in count 2. It is improbable that in such circumstances she would fabricate an account of alleged offending against her, by the accused, at that time, which included the accused saying to her, ‘I haven’t gotten off in God knows how long.’ 618 The accused gave evidence that he had used porn as a substitute for physical connections with other people and for physical intimacy. AM’s description of the alleged offending in count 2 included the accused expressing a degree of sexual frustration due to a lack of physical intimacy with others and using sexual activity with AM, as a substitute for physical, sexual connection with another person. 619 This evidence strongly supports a finding that AM has not fabricated the alleged offending in count 2, nor has she fabricated the alleged offending in count 1. Summary 620 Having carefully scrutinised AM’s evidence, in the context of all of the evidence, I am satisfied that she was an honest witness, who was telling the truth about the alleged offences. I believed her. 621 I am satisfied that the circumstances of the offending as described by AM are such that she simply could not be mistaken about what she described, as to each offence. Further, I am satisfied that what AM recounted as to each alleged offence, was a real lived experience, and not the product of a dream or of her imagination. 622 I am further satisfied that AM’s evidence as to the core aspects of each offence is reliable. 623 I am mindful that the accused has consistently denied the offending. He also consistently denied having any sexual interest in AM and of ever acting out, with AM, what he had watched on various pornographic videos. 624 I have previously outlined my findings that the accused was neither a credible, nor a reliable witness. -- 99 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 98 625 After carefully considering all of the evidence, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the accused was telling the truth insofar as he denied the alleged offending against AM, in either count. Findings 626 As to count 1, I accept AM’s account of the alleged offending, beyond reasonable doubt. 627 I accept AM’s evidence as to the pain she felt at the entrance of her vagina while the accused was pushing his bare penis on her bare vagina. 628 While it is very likely that during this act, the accused’s penis penetrated AM’s vagina, I cannot be satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt, having regard to AM’s evidence as follows:425 AM: He never actually went in, it was just the, like the barrier. It wasn’t, it was only like this, the ... oh my God what’s the word – it was only the en, like the beginning of the entrance. Dawson: Okay. AM: Like the very bit, like the front of it. 629 However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that when AM referred to ‘the front of it’, what she was describing was her labia majora, that is, the very entrance to her vagina. 630 My finding in this respect is reinforced by AM’s evidence, that I accept, beyond reasonable doubt, that: • the accused ‘was not doing it properly but enough for it to actually push in slightly’;426 • the accused’s penis was ‘not fully in’ but in enough to hurt her;427 • the accused kept ‘pushing into my vagina’;428 and • the accused had told her afterwards ‘that’s as far as I’ll go’.429 631 I am satisfied and find that what AM described was the accused’s penis penetrating her labia majora. This is further evidenced by the pain she felt both at the entrance of her vagina at that time and the pain she felt the next day upon urinating. I am satisfied that the only reasonable explanation for AM to feel such 425 MFIP2 at lines 432-434. 426 Ibid at line 352. 427 Ibid at lines 397-403. 428 Ibid at line 426. 429 Ibid at line 420. -- 100 of 101 -- [2026] SADC 37 99 pain, is that there was, at least, penetration of AM’s labia majora by the accused’s penis, on the occasion described by her. 632 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that either late on 21 June 2023, or early on 22 June 2023, at a time when AM was a child aged 17, and the accused was an adult and as her father was in a position of authority with respect to her, the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with AM by inserting his penis into her labia majora. 633 As to count 2, I accept AM’s account of the alleged offending, beyond reasonable doubt. 634 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that either late on 9 August 2023, or early on 10 August 2023, the accused intentionally and unlawfully applied force to AM by using his hand to touch her vagina, over her clothing, at a time when she was a child aged 17 and he was her father. I am further satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the application of force had a sexual connotation and therefore was accompanied by circumstances of indecency. Verdict 635 The accused is guilty of both counts. -- 101 of 101 --