[2025] SADC 139

Prosecution: R Counsel: MS F LINALE - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: H, R T Counsel: MR S ROCHE - Solicitor: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (SA) Hearing Date/s: 07/10/2025, 08/10/2025, 09/10/2025, 13/10/2025, 14/10/2025, 16/10/2025, 22/10/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-25-014146 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 H, R T Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2025] SADC 139 Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Fuller 5 December 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - SEXUAL OFFENCES - COMMUNICATING TO MAKE A CHILD AMENABLE TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY Accused charged with one count of communicating with the intention of making a child amenable to sexual activity – Accused and complainant known to each other through their respective involvement in softball – accused alleged to have sent sexualised messages and images of his penis to the complainant on Snapchat during a 9-hour period on 12 January 2024 when complainant 16 years old and accused 33 years old – complainant downloaded an image of breasts from the internet and sent it to the accused on Snapchat – complainant said that all of the messages and images deleted immediately after being viewed – however she ‘stickered’ and thereby saved an image of the penis she said the accused sent her – that image was proved to have been downloaded from the internet and was not an image of the accused’s penis – no other evidence led to independently establish that the accused and the complainant communicated over Snapchat during time period alleged – Facebook messages prior to and after 9-hour period downloaded by complainant – no sexualised Facebook messages but messages relied upon by prosecution as grooming behaviour and to corroborate complainant’s account that she received a notification that the accused had screenshotted the image of the breasts – complainant participated in two prescribed interviews and gave evidence at trial – evidence of complaint to her father and a friend from softball – accused participated in lengthy record of interview denying offending – accused’s mobile telephone seized and no evidence of impugned Snapchat communications or images located. Held: Charge not proved beyond reasonable doubt given infirmities and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant on material matters, compelling nature of accused’s denials in record of interview and absence of independent evidence of fact, extent and nature of alleged Snapchat communications. Verdict: Not guilty. -- 1 of 72 -- Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 63B (3) (b); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 13BA (3)(b), s 13BA (5), referred to. R v Richards (2016) 125 SASR 341; R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR; R v Barrie [2012] 2018 A Crim R 448; Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50 at 70; R v G [2015] SASC 186; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; San v R (2020) 136 SASR 161 at 172; R v Weetra (2010) 108 SASR 232 at 244, considered. -- 2 of 72 -- R v H, R T [2025] SADC 139 Criminal The charge 1 The accused was charged on Information with the following offence: Communicating with the Intention of Making a Child Amenable to Sexual Activity. (Section 63B(3)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars [RTH] on the 12th day of January 2024 at Davoren Park and other places, made a communication for a prurient purpose with the intention of making [TC] amenable to sexual activity. The plea 2 The accused pleaded not guilty and elected for trial by Judge alone. I heard the trial without a jury. I now publish my reasons for the verdict I am about to deliver. Overview of the prosecution case as opened on 3 The complainant, TC was born on 7 January 2008 and was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence. Online communications on Facebook Messenger between her and the accused began on 1 October 2023 when she was 15 years old. At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 33 years old, being born on 23 April 1990. 4 The accused and TC knew each other through their respective involvement in local softball clubs in Adelaide. The accused assisted TC occasionally with umpiring softball games. He was not her coach. 5 On 12 January 2024, TC, received a request from the accused to become friends on the application Snapchat. She accepted his request and over the next nine hours, the accused communicated with her via Snapchat intending to make her amenable to sexual activity. 6 At the time of trial, the Snapchat communications the subject of the charge no longer existed. The prosecution case relied upon the recollection of TC as to the contents of those communications which, on the prosecution case were of a sexual nature and for a prurient purpose. The prosecution also relied upon messages between the accused and TC on Facebook Messenger, immediately before and after the Snapchat communications, as providing important contextual background. 7 TC gave two prescribed interviews, on 1 June 2024 and 7 August 2024. TC complained to her father about the accused sending her inappropriate messages on 12 January 2024. She did not elaborate on the complaint and her father advised her -- 3 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 2 to block the accused to prevent further communication. She was with her father in Cairns on 12 January 2024. 8 TC confided in a friend of hers, CS, and showed him a photograph of an exposed penis that she said was sent to her by the accused on 12 January 2024. On the prosecution case this was an elaboration of the initial complaint by TC to her father. 9 On the prosecution case, the Facebook messages showed the accused’s sexual interest in TC and gave important context to the charged communications on Snapchat. The charged offending took place at some point after 12.29pm when the accused sent TC a message saying, ‘I’m horny’. TC asked him if he had a partner to help him with that and he said no. The accused then asked TC what she was wearing and if she could send photographs of herself, in a bikini, and then the messages progressed to requests for pictures of her breasts. The accused sent TC a picture which showed his tracksuit pants and him holding his penis in his hand through his pants. The accused was wearing a red polo T-shirt with a logo and black track suit pants. Although the accused’s face was not in the photograph, TC recognised the person in the photograph as the accused because he had sent her pictures earlier that day which included his face and he was wearing the same clothing in them. All of these pictures no longer existed. 10 The accused then sent TC a picture of an exposed penis. She took a Snapchat sticker of the picture which enabled her to save a copy of that photograph without alerting the accused to the fact she had done so. Other messages sent by the accused to TC included messages telling her that the only thing that would make him feel better was the look of her body and that if he was to have sex with her, he wanted to give her pleasure. He said he would bend her over and pull her hair to make her scream. He explained in detail how he would do that, how it would make him feel and the pleasure he would get from it. The accused told TC it would give him pleasure to have a ‘fresh pussy to fuck’. 11 The accused continuously asked her for nude photographs. She did not send him any, but she sent a pair of breasts to the accused in an effort to stop him asking for pictures. She had downloaded this picture from the internet and pretended it was a photograph of her breasts. The accused then asked TC to send more photographs because they were perfect. She told him she did not want to. She then became upset because she thought he had either replayed, saved or screenshotted the photograph of the breasts she had sent. 12 At this point, TC blocked the accused on Snapchat and their conversation was deleted via the Snapchat application. She then messaged the accused on Facebook Messenger shortly afterwards. She did this when she realised the Snapchat messages had been deleted. She wanted evidence of the accused confessing to doing something illegal and she wanted to ask him why he saved the last photograph she sent him. She was concerned he might send it to someone else so she contacted him via Facebook Messenger to tell him to delete the photograph. -- 4 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 3 She thought she would be in trouble for downloading the breast images from the internet. The accused denied saving any photograph that TC had sent her. She told him via Facebook Messenger that her trust was broken but he said he had done everything she asked. She told him he was in love with her, and he responded ‘I like you a bit, yes. Why?’ 13 The accused then called TC and the call lasted one minute. On the prosecution case, in that call, the accused apologised to TC for sending her sexualised communications. After the phone call, TC messaged the accused, apologising for not being perfect. He responded, ‘you don’t have to be prefect (sic) to me. It’s your imperfections that make you prefect (sic) to me’. 14 TC then told the accused that they could not keep doing this in case it ever got out. He asked if she was scared about what he said on Snapchat. TC said she was recently raped and it brought back all the memories of what he did to her. The accused apologised and said he would not do that to her and he felt like an arsehole. She said, ‘can we just stop’ and the accused told her he was crying. 15 TC then sent the accused a screenshot of messages she sent to the accused’s wife via Facebook Messenger. TC told the accused he was a ‘fucking liar’ and then said she was going to go to the police. There were no further messages after that. 16 The accused was interviewed on 28 August 2024. He said he had known TC since she was young; she had contacted him on Facebook Messenger; he knew she was 15 or 16 years old; they were friends on Facebook but did not communicate via other social media sites; he had Snapchat but did not have TC as a friend on Snapchat. He denied having any conversation with TC on Snapchat. 17 The accused said in the interview that TC had contacted him on 11 or 12 January 2024 claiming she was attacked by a boyfriend or someone she was dating and she asked the accused whether he could buy her some drugs or alcohol. The accused asked her why she needed that and she said it would help her cope. He told her he was a mandatory reporter and would have to tell her mother. At this point, TC threatened to tell people that the accused had sent her something inappropriate if he told her mother about the drugs and alcohol. The accused became concerned so he deleted the messages. She contacted him on Instagram a few days later and threatened him again so he again deleted her and the messages. 18 The Facebook messages were shown to the accused in the interview. He then said that he had asked TC for her Snapchat details but his memory was patchy and he could not recall if he had in fact added her on Snapchat. He could not recall sending or receiving photographs on Facebook Messenger and when they were shown to him, he still did not recall them. 19 Whilst reading through the Facebook messages, the accused said ‘yeah, okay, some of that stuff doesn’t make me look too good, does it’. He denied sending TC any sexualised communications on Snapchat or sending photographs of his penis. -- 5 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 4 He was shown the photograph of the penis and said it was not his. When asked why he asked to move the conversation from Facebook Messenger to Snapchat he said that he talked to lots of people on Snapchat. 20 The accused said that during the one-minute phone call, he told TC that lying about allegations would ruin his softball career. He explained that he told TC she was perfect because, at that stage, he was trying to be nice. He told police that he had a brain injury that affected his memory and this was why he could not recall things that happened nine months before. 21 The accused said that during the period he was alleged to be communicating with TC on Snapchat he was at work until 2pm, then he was with his children between 2 and 5pm, he visited his wife at Ampol in Munno Para for 45 minutes, dropped off and picked up his daughter at dance, played softball between 6 and 8.15pm and at 9.00pm went to KFC to get takeaway. 22 During the interview, the accused gave to police copies of Facebook Messenger communications with CS dated 8 July 2024. He told police that the messages corroborated his account of TC asking for drugs and alcohol and blackmailing him. On the prosecution case, CS was playing dumb and pretending he did not know anything about the allegation, despite TC disclosing it to him on 13 January 2024. CS agreed with the accused in the Facebook messages in an effort to stop the accused messaging him. Elements of the offence 23 The elements of the offence charged under s 63B (3) (b) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA) are: 1. The accused made a communication; 2. He did so for a prurient purpose; 3. He did so with the intention of making a child under the prescribed age (that is a person under the age of 17 years)1 amenable to sexual activity. 24 Each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. ‘Sexual activity’ 25 The expression ‘sexual activity’ in s 63B (3) (b) is not statutorily defined. In R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 503, Kourakis CJ, with whom Kelly J agreed, observed: It is a compound expression which should not be restricted to the narrower denotation which the word ‘activity’ might carry in isolation. The connotation of the compound expression is much wider because of the broadness of its adjectival descriptor. “Sexual activity” should be given its ordinary meaning which includes many behaviours, whether physical or verbal, which are capable of being sexually stimulating. In the construction of 1 A child under the prescribed age is defined in s 63B as a child under the age of 17 years. -- 6 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 5 s 63B (3) of the Act, the narrowness with which a criminal offence provision is generally construed must give way to the public interest in protecting children from sexualisation. The risks which might otherwise arise from a wide construction of a criminal offence provision are much reduced in the case of s 63B (3) of the Act because of the specific intent required by the fault element of the offence. The manifest purpose of s 63B (3) is to proscribe the sexualisation of children by adults. That sexualisation is a serious societal mischief in itself and can, and does, commonly lead to the commission of sexual assaults of the kind prescribed by Pt 3, Div 11 of the Act.2 26 Intimate conversations about sex or engaging in sexualised conversation are a sexual activity for the purposes of s 63B (3):3 If a child is persuaded to send or receive digital pornographic images, be they photographs or animations, and engage in discussion about them, I see no difficulty in describing the exchange as sexual activity. If that be so, the exchange of texts alone cannot be distinguished from it.4 27 In R v Richards (2016) 125 SASR 341, Kourakis CJ observed: Whether or not an activity is a sexual one is a question of fact which will be informed by the life experience of the tribunal of fact. The context in which the activity occurs will be important. That context includes all of the manifestations of the conduct which are perceptible by the parties to the communication or any one of them. The context, importantly, includes the absence of circumstances which provide a valid reason for the communication…In that respect, the context will also include the prurient purpose of the accused. That purpose is likely to be a very important factor, but it will not be determinative.5 28 Activities may be plainly sexual in whatever context they occur or may not be sexual at all, irrespective of the context. However, there will be activity, including internet conversations, which may or may not be characterised as sexual activity depending on the surrounding circumstances. ‘To make a child amenable’ 29 To make a child amenable is to influence the child to yield, submit or cooperate. The conduct must be deliberate.6 The prosecution is not required to prove that the person to whom the communication is made is in fact a child. The essence of the offence is the making of a communication with the relevant intention.7 2 R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 503, 505-506, [3] – [4]. 3 R v Symons (Ibid) at [5]; San v R (2020) 136 SASR 161, 172-173 at [37] per Kourakis CJ, with whom Stanley and Lovell JJ agreed. 4 R v Symons (Ibid) at [6]. 5 R v Richards (2016) 125 SASR 341 at 346, at [24]. 6 R v Richards (Ibid) at [21] per Kourakis CJ. 7 R v Barrie [2012] 2018 A Crim R 448, 445-456 at [36] – [40] Vanstone J; White J posited two constructions with respect to the issue of the defendant’s intention; firstly that the inquiry is wholly subjective and concerns only the defendant’s subjective state of mind and whether the defendant has the requisite state of mind in relation to a person who seemed to the defendant to be under the prescribed age or, secondly, the defendant will have the proscribed intention if, objectively, having regard to the -- 7 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 6 ‘For a prurient purpose’ 30 A prurient purpose must accompany the conduct intended to make a child amenable to sexual activity. A prurient purpose is defined in s 62 CLCA as follows: A person acts for a prurient purpose if the person acts with the intention of satisfying his or her own desire for sexual arousal or gratification or of providing sexual arousal or gratification for someone else. 31 Where the conduct involves trying to engage the child in sexual conversation or texting, the prurient purpose is to obtain instant sexual gratification from the conversation itself. In other cases, where the intention is to make the child amenable to physical sexual activity, the prurient purpose may be a delayed one.8 ‘Communication’ 32 The conduct element of the offence is the making of a single communication or a series of connected communications. A single offence is committed by making that communication, even if an accused has a multiplicity of sexual conduct in mind.9 Often, the communication itself will refer to sexual activity, but that need not be so. The communication may, on its face, be quite innocuous, but nonetheless be made with the intention of making a child amenable to sexual activity.10 Issues in dispute 33 The issue in dispute is whether the accused in fact sent any communications via Snapchat of a sexualised nature. General directions 34 The accused elected for trial by Judge sitting without a jury pursuant to the provisions of s 7 of the Juries Act 1927. As Lovell J observed in R v G [2015] SASC 186, whilst the Act is silent as to any requirement regarding the contents of the reasons for verdicts, such requirements are established in several authorities: see R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; and AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438 per Heydon J. 35 The general directions were summarised by Lovell J in R v G11. They are as follows: As the Judge of the facts and law, I must find the facts and draw the inferences from them as well as apply the law to the facts that I find. I must bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidence and view it clinically and dispassionately and not let emotion enter into the decision-making process. Both the prosecution and the accused are entitled to my verdict circumstances as they appeared to the defendant to be, he intended to make a person apparently under the prescribed age amenable to sexual activity. His Honour said that it will be open to the trier of fact to conclude that, whether considered subjectively or objectively, the recipient of the communications was, to the maker of them, a person apparently under the prescribed age. 8 San v R (2020) 136 SASR 161 at 172, [36] Kourakis CJ. 9 San v R (Ibid) at [5], [32] per Kourakis CJ. 10 San v R (Ibid) at [35] per Kourakis CJ. 11 [2015] SASC 186 -- 8 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 7 free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will. I must then deliver my verdict according to the evidence. The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused at all times. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offence as charged. The standard of proof of the prosecution case is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. In the findings I make in these reasons, I make those findings beyond reasonable doubt unless I specify otherwise. The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offence unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I must determine whether each of the witnesses called are truthful and reliable, that is, whether I can rely on the evidence that the witness gives me and so find the facts about which the witness has given evidence. I can accept part of a witness’s evidence and reject part of that evidence or accept or reject it all. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt, of any or all of the elements of the offence charged, then the accused remains presumed innocent and I must find a verdict of not guilty. 36 The accused elected not to give evidence. He was under no obligation to give evidence. No adverse inference may be drawn from the fact that he exercised that right. In particular, the silence of the accused does not constitute any form of admission, may not be used to fill gaps (if any) in the prosecution case and may not be used as a makeweight in assessing whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.12 The accused’s record of interview, and his denials and any admissions I find contained therein, is evidence in the case that I can take into account in determining whether the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no onus on the accused to prove anything he said in his record of interview. The prosecution must prove that any denial of the offending in the record of interview is not reasonably possibly true. The evidence 37 I turn to examine the evidence led at trial. Detective Brevet Sergeant Joel Manson 38 The prescribed interviews conducted with TC were tendered through the investigating officer, Detective Brevet Sergeant Manson and transcripts prepared from each interview were marked for identification: Exhibit P1 and MFI P1A and P1B. Each interview was played in court. The statutory conditions for the admission of each interview were met, in particular, s 13BA (3)(b) Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (EA). 12 Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50 at 70 [51] and R v Weetra (2010) 108 SASR 232 at 244 [67]. -- 9 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 8 39 In considering the answers of TC in each of the prescribed interviews, I have not drawn any inference adverse to the accused from the form of this evidence, nor have I allowed it to influence the weight to be given to the evidence. Summary of prescribed interviews of TC 1 June 2024 40 TC said that the accused was a coach at Softball SA and she met him at the USC Bears and Cubs. She then moved to Port Adelaide Softball Club and he was there. He was also an umpire and helped her with some umpiring tips. He then became a coach and ‘was trying to give me some advice for softball as well’. 41 TC explained that she ‘got a dick-pic sent to me. I don’t know whether that was his or on-line’. The accused was messaging her about how he had feelings for her and the way he wanted to have sex with her. She said she was lying in bed on her phone scrolling through Tik-Tok. The accused sent her a message saying, ‘I’m horny’ and she responded ‘okay, don’t you have a partner who you can go do your business with?’ He said no. TC said the accused then asked her questions but she did not feel comfortable answering them because of the age difference. She then said: And then he sent me a dick-pic and I didn’t know what to do with it. So I blocked him.13 42 The Facebook Messages between TC and the accused from 1 October 2023 to 12 January 2024 were tendered through Detective Manson: Exhibit P2. The prosecution relied upon some of the messages as discreditable conduct pursuant to s 34P (2) (a) EA. It was submitted that the tone of the conversation on 12 January 2024 prior to the charged communications demonstrated that the accused was grooming TC and developing a deeper connection with her and this was relevant to evaluating TC’s evidence regarding the charged communications. The messages alleged to have been sent after the charged communications were relevant as supporting TC’s account that there had been sexualised communications on Snapchat. 43 A photograph of a penis being held in a hand provided to Detective Manson by TC on 10 February 2025 was tendered: Exhibit P3. 44 TC could not recall when the alleged offending occurred but it was when she was in Cairns between 9 and 21 January 2024. TC said that in the messages which were on Messenger and Snapchat, the accused said he had feelings for her, he was single and he was asking for nudes. The accused asked for her Snapchat so he could send her videos of softball. TC explained that she was not thinking straight and was in a bad mental health state at the time and that was why she sent him her Snapchat. He then started trying to hit on her with inappropriate messages and 13 MFI-P1A, page 6, [52]. -- 10 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 9 photos. He sent her photographs of his penis, and his hand wrapped around his penis with his clothes on. He said things like ‘you’re cute’ and ‘you’re perfect’. 45 TC said the photograph was of the accused’s hand and penis because it was a ‘red Snap’ and was not photo-shopped. TC explained that a ‘red Snap’ is an instant photograph. The clothes in the photograph were the same ones the accused was wearing in other Snaps he sent her of his face, when he was walking, making food and ‘stuff’. He was wearing a red polo shirt with a sporting logo and black trackies. 46 TC then said that the accused sent her a photograph of his actual penis. She ‘stickered’ it. She showed this photograph to her mother and CS. She thought it was his penis because it was in a red Snap. She did not have any proof of him asking for nudes. He only asked her once. He said he was horny and she was trying to dismiss him but he kept going. She kept sending him ‘dry Snaps’ which were just photographs of a wall. He was saying, ‘the only thing that would make better right now is the look of your body’. When asked if she remembered what he was saying, she said ‘Not really’. He was asking her to show him photographs of her breasts. He was continuously asking, trying to ‘peer pressure’ her into it. 47 TC said she could not remember everything. She thought he had feelings for her because of the kind of Snaps he was sending her. It all happened on the one day in Cairns and then she blocked him. 48 The first person she told was CS and he tried to convince her to go to the police and make a report. She asked CS if he had the accused on Snapchat and he said yes. She then told him that he had been hitting on her and sending photographs. She then sent him screenshots of Messenger messages and the photograph of the penis. 49 TC was asked whether she had any other messages or photographs on her phone apart from the screenshots. She said no and that ‘after I blocked him, I deleted everything’. 50 TC was asked about the message on Facebook Messenger from the accused in which he said ‘did anything else happen in your dream about us’. She said she did not know what that meant because she had never had a dream about him. TC explained that she was only able to get the screenshots from Facebook Messenger because after she blocked him, he went ‘through the chats and deleted all the evidence’. The messages on Snapchat deleted afterwards because the accused had a ‘delete immediately’ setting. 7 August 2024 51 During the second prescribed interview, TC was taken through the Facebook Messages in P2. TC was asked about when she would see the accused. She replied: -- 11 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 10 Well, I didn’t really know him that well. So, when I would kind, when I saw him out at softball I would just say ‘hello’ like and kind of do a wave and whatever. And then if he asked how I was or anything then I would obviously tell him how I was and ask how he was. I think there was only one time, one occasion that we actually spoke which was when I was doing umpiring at Mum’s Master’s competition and I was umpiring as it said in the, as it says in the messages. And he was just giving me some tips on where I was standing so I didn’t get hit by the ball, like just for my own safety and also the players’ safety.14 52 TC said there were no communications like the ones on Snapchat when they saw each other face to face. She never saw him outside of softball. 53 TC denied sending the accused any images of herself when he asked her to. She said he was continuously asking her about what she was doing, what she was wearing, and kept asking her to send him photos of her in a bikini so that he could see her body. She kept saying no, she did not want to and he said he was horny, wanted her to see him and do stuff with him. She told him she could not because of the age difference and she was not attracted to him. TC said he used the words ‘have sex and give him pleasure’.15 54 The accused asked to see photos of her ‘tits’. He told her that ‘if I was with you right now, I would want you to give me pleasure and have sex with me’. She then told him ‘this is all too much. Can we stop?’.16 55 TC was asked about the messages on Facebook in P2 in which she told the accused to leave her alone and ‘delete that fucking photo now’. She said she could not ‘exactly remember’ but because the accused was continuously asking her to send him nudes, she ‘did send him one that I searched up on the internet that I put into a Snap so then he would stop asking me continuously for my own body’.17 She said she searched for ‘boobs of women’18 and found a picture of another person’s breasts on the internet without the person’s face. 56 The prescribed interviewer pressed TC about whether she had sent a photograph of herself to the accused, explaining that she did not need to feel embarrassed and if she had done so, she had not done anything wrong. The interviewer asked her why she got so angry with the accused when she said, ‘delete that fucking photo now’.19 She explained: I saw that he kept replaying it. And I didn’t know if he’s, was sticking, like stickering it or saving it, screenshotting it or anything, cos it didn’t actually show up on my end… 14 MFI-P1B, page 7, [76]. 15 MFI-P1B, page 10, [118] 16 MFI-P1B, page 10 [126], [128]. 17 MFI-P1B, page11, [135], [136] 18 MFI-P1B, page 11 [140] 19 MFI-P1B, page 13 [159] -- 12 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 11 But yeah I just felt kind of vulnerable that if he was – even it wasn’t me, going to send it to some of my closest mates, that you know, then it could be a whole another thing.20 57 TC said she blocked the accused on Snapchat because she just could not deal with it anymore. She blocked him after the accused said, ‘they were so perfect. Can you send more’.21 As soon as he kept asking and she said no, she blocked him straight away. She explained: Oh, he was just saying ‘can you send me more, can I see more’. And I just said ‘no this, I don’t like this kind of communication. One, it’s making me uncomfortable and two, I’m insecure. And he just said ‘there’s nothing to be insecure about. Surely it will only stay’ like ‘between us. No one else will find out about it’. And then I just said, ‘absolutely not’. And then blocked him.22 58 She spoke with her father and said ‘what do I do about these messages’23 and later in the interview said she told her father ‘look this guy is someone who is close to your age is sending me inappropriate photos and messages saying that, you know, he has feelings for me and stuff’24 and her father said ‘you don’t need to deal with that, you’re too young. Just block him and just explain to him what’s wrong’.25 59 TC said that she moved to Facebook messenger because she knew with Snapchat the messages ‘go away’ and ‘you can’t get data download’. She said if the accused was to ‘confess anything’ that was against the law she would have enough evidence. She was going through a similar situation at the time. 60 The prescribed interviewer asked TC what the accused meant when he said that he did everything she asked and did not break her trust. She said, ‘I can’t remember. I didn’t ask him to do anything for me. All I said to him was ‘you need to stop; this is making me uncomfortable’ and I was also asking him for certain tips on softball because he was a coach’. 26 She further explained: So I think that’s what he means by ‘I did everything that you asked me to’. Because I was asking him to send me videos and, like of you know, hitting a ball, throwing a ball, pitching. So then I could improve my skills as well’.27 61 TC was asked what was said in the one-minute telephone call: Ah, it was him just apologising and basically saying that everything would change if I didn’t block him and that he’s sorry for what he did. Cos I think he actually realised what he did was wrong. But I didn’t talk in it. I just had myself on mute, while I was listening to 20 MFI-P1B, page 13, [162] 21 MFI-P1B, page 15 [186] 22 MFI-P1B, page 15, 188. 23 MFI-P1B, page 14 [182] 24 MFI-P1B, page 19, [236] 25 MFI-P1B, page 19, [236] 26 MFI-P1B, page 16, [200] 27 MFI-P1B, page 16, [202] -- 13 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 12 what he was saying, but then there’s like, I only listened for a little bit and I put it down cos I just couldn’t be bothered to deal with it.28 62 TC said the accused was sorry for asking for the photographs. She said he never asked for any other type of photographs other than of her breasts. He asked for photographs of her in a bikini when she was going swimming with her father. 63 TC said she wished she had not messaged him on Facebook because it made it worse. When she wrote on Facebook messenger, ‘I need to do this for you so that no one finds out about it’ she was ‘trying to protect him within the softball community because he loves the sport as much as I did.’ 64 TC denied having a dream about the accused. 65 TC said the accused was telling her he wanted to have pleasure and have sex with her and told her how he would do it. He said he would bend her over and pull her hair to make her scream. He told her how it would make him feel and the pleasure he would get from it.29 When asked if she could recall the actual things he said, TC explained: And he was also saying how it would give him pleasure with having a, having a fresh pussy to fuck. And I just said, ‘okay that’s, that’s enough.’ Like you know you have a missus, you can’t, one, you can’t be message me that because of her and, two, because I’m a minor’. And so that’s just when I completely called it off, because that’s what was the lead up to me blocking him, was all of those. All that extra how he was going to do it and everything.30 66 TC said that when the accused was asking about the breasts, she told him, ‘I can’t. I’m a minor and we can, like, we can both get in serious trouble’ but he just kept pressuring her. He said, ‘surely you can send one, it’s not that hard…can you please it will make me feel better.’ 67 TC said that when she first added the accused on Snapchat, there was about ten minutes of snapping of random things and after that it was constant sexual messages and images. She did not ask him to send her any images. She said she was sitting on the couch next to her father when she opened up the phone to see the image of the penis outside of the clothing. The naked erect penis was the last penis image he sent her. 68 TC was asked why she wrote the Facebook message ‘you meant a lot to me’.31 She explained: So obviously from coaching and…I don’t even know the relationship that it would be called. Coaching and player relationship. He did help me a lot with, you know, umpiring skills and all of that. So yeah, it kind of, made me think a lot of him, before, you know, wil 28 MFI-P1B, page 17, [210]. 29 MFI-P1B, page 20, [246] – [252]. 30 MFIP1B, page 20, [252]. TC said this was basically a summary of everything. 31 MFI-P1B, page 24, [305] -- 14 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 13 – like going out of his way and helping someone with their skills and you know, their experience with umpiring cos, he has had a, a lot of experience with umpiring. So I think that’s why he meant so much in that time, because he helped me with, you know, softball, umpiring. There was even times…no that wasn’t him – never mind. Um so it kind of only started hap, like I met him a long time ago from softball but I never had much to do with him. Like and it, it would be brie…be a very brief ‘hi’ that we would say to each other. And then we went and then we went to the Port Adelaide Softball Club for the October Masters Competition, I was doing some umpiring and then that’s when he started to help me, and then we actually started to have…not, not a ‘relationship’ but a, acquaintanceship – whatever you want to call that.32 69 TC messaged the accused’s partner on Facebook asking if she and the accused were still together. When she said yes, TC said she wanted to tell her what had happened so that she was aware that she was with someone who was cheating on her. However, TC said, ‘I also didn’t want to tell her that much, that, you know, it could be used against me as well…like, you know, they could come to the police for harassment or any of that kind of stuff.’33 TC 70 I granted an application by prosecution and defence counsel to further examine and cross-examine TC on enumerated topics, having satisfied myself of the matters set out in s 13BA (5) EA. TC gave her evidence via CCTV, accompanied by a court companion and the court was closed during her evidence. I direct myself that these special arrangements should not influence the weight of TC’s evidence and I will not draw any adverse inference against the accused. When TC met the accused 71 TC said she met the accused when she was around 10 years old and playing for USC Softball. She later moved to Port Adelaide Softball Club from age 12 to 15 and after a season or two, the accused’s stepdaughter moved to that club. She only knew him as an umpire. In the 2023/2024 season she was playing every Saturday unless they had a bye. The season started in October and finished in March. In 2023 she played for the under sixteen division.34 Frequency of interaction with accused in lead up to charged offence 72 During the 2023/2024 season she saw the accused rarely and only crossed paths if he was umpiring or his stepdaughter was playing. She could not recall if he umpired any of her games but saw him umpiring other games. Umpiring softball 73 TC started umpiring in October 2023 after attending a one-day training at West Beach. However, she only umpired for the Masters Tournament in the middle 32 MFIP1B, page 24, 306-308. 33 MFI-P1B, page 25, [312] – [314]. 34 T 36-37. -- 15 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 14 of October for a week. This involved umpiring two games a day which was about three hours each day for a week. At this tournament she saw the accused.35 They did not umpire together. Their only interaction at the tournament was on one occasion when she was umpiring and was on the diamonds. She was standing in a position where a ball could have hit her and the accused tried to give her advice to position her in the right path. He spoke to her during a break in the game for less than five minutes. That was the only time that they crossed paths during the tournament.36 Facebook communications with the accused 74 TC said that she received a happy birthday message from the accused on 1 October 2023 via Facebook. She thought it was meant for her sister whose birthday was on 30 September.37 75 TC could not recall how she became Facebook friends with the accused or who it was who sent the friend request. TC was then taken to the messages in P2. She did not have an independent recollection of the messages between her and the accused regarding adding TC on Snapchat. She said he asked her if he could add her and she accepted his request.38 TC’s recollection of the Snapchat communications 76 TC could not recall who sent the first Snapchat message. She said the first few communications were ‘about the way I would feel and all of that’. The messages no longer existed because both she and the accused set their chat to ‘delete after viewing’ so she could not access those messages after they blocked each other. TC said that the accused set ‘delete after viewing’ on his Snapchat and asked her if she was okay with that and she said yes. She said if someone wanted to message her privately and for it to be kept between them, she did not have a problem with that setting. TC said that at any time she could have changed her setting to, for example, delete after 48 hours. She did not think anything of the accused asking her to use that setting.39 77 TC said she could have saved the messages to chat by holding down the message. If a message is saved to chat, the person on the other end would know it has been saved because it usually comes up with a highlighted line on the left-hand side of the screen.40 78 TC said that a red Snap is an instant photograph. When a person receives a red Snap, it has a red square around it, signifying it is an instant photograph. A blue snap is a chat. A dry Snap is a photograph without a person’s face in it. TC explained that dry Snaps are sent when you are not interested in what the other 35 T 38-39. 36 T 39-40. 37 T 41. 38 T 42-43. 39 T 46-47. 40 T 47. -- 16 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 15 person is saying or doing. TC said that the ‘sticker’ function is used to save a photograph without the other person knowing. The user would press ‘remix snap’ and then select the scissors option and then select the image they wanted to use.41 TC said she was aware that the other person would not receive a notification that the photograph had been stickered because she had a friend do this when she was right next to her.42 79 TC said that the standard setting for a person without a subscription who is sent a photograph on Snapchat is the ability to replay it up to twice.43 However, if Snapchat was set to delete after viewing, TC did not think the photograph could be viewed more than once.44 If a person takes a screenshot of a message or photograph the sender receives a notification. Once a person is blocked on Snapchat all the messages disappear and the person cannot be sent a message.45 However, if the delete after viewing setting has been chosen, the messages will have already deleted.46 80 During the Snapchat communications with the accused on 12 January 2024, the accused continuously asked her to show him her body. He often asked her to send photographs. This made her feel insecure and uncomfortable. TC said she never liked her body so it made her feel insecure for someone to ask her to share photographs of it.47 81 TC said that the accused made her feel uncomfortable during the Snapchat communications because: He said he wanted to book a hotel room, so just the two of us could go over there for the night so that he could then bend me over and his words ‘Fuck me from behind’.48 82 TC could not remember if she told the accused she was interstate. She was then taken to the Facebook messages and agreed that on 10 January 2024 and 12 January 2024 she sent messages to the accused telling him she was in Cairns.49 83 TC said that when the accused was talking about taking her to a hotel room, he wrote that he wanted to see the way she felt as well: ‘I wonder how you would feel’. 50 All she said in response to those messages was ‘okay’ because she did not want to not respond and she did not want to engage in conversation with him. She did not want him to think that he was being annoying.51 41 T 48-49. 42 T 50. 43 T 51. 44 T 52. 45 T 58. 46 T 59. 47 T 59. 48 T 60, 7-9. 49 T 60. 50 T 61. 51 T 62. -- 17 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 16 84 TC said that the accused sent her photographs which showed what he was wearing. He sent photographs of him standing in front of the mirror with his trackpants on and a red shirt. He was in a room with a bed in it. There were multiple images. She could see his face in those photographs. She responded by sending him photographs of her face or the pool. She did not send any messages with the photographs. After this, the accused then sent her the photograph of his crotch area with his penis under his clothing. 52 She said there was a bed and legs in the photograph and it was very similar to the bedding and pillows that were in the other photos he had sent her. She could not describe them.53 85 About half an hour after receiving the photograph of his penis under his pants, she received the photograph of the exposed penis: P3. The image in P3 is not the entire photograph she received but that was because she squiggled around the main image using the sticker function. She did that ‘just in case…for anything further…like because of the age difference, in case I wanted to ever report it to police and like etc’.54 She stickered around it in the way that can be seen in P3 because her phone screen was damaged and she could not get the whole image. Using the sticker resulted in the photograph being saved to her Snapchat camera without the accused being notified. If she had saved the photograph or screenshotted it, the accused would have been notified. The balance of the image contained the rest of the bed. 55 All photographs she received from the accused were red snaps.56 86 TC said that when she told the accused that she was not comfortable with the conversation because she was a minor and the age difference, he wrote back ‘no one will find out’. She asked him if he was still dating his partner because she did not want to get in between a relationship.57 When asked what made her feel like she might be getting in between a relationship, she said: Because I didn’t want his partner to take it the wrong way…Like for her to think that I was trying to get in with [the accused] or that [the accused] and I were in a relationship.58 87 This information did not influence the way in which she communicated with him after that.59 88 TC said she searched up a photograph of breasts and saved it through her camera roll. She applied a green screen filter, selected the photograph she wanted to use and then took a photograph and made sure there were no people, shadows or anything else in the background and then sent it to the accused. She then deleted the image from her phone. When she sent it, it would have appeared as a red snap 52 T 64-65. 53 T 65. 54 T 66, 36, 38; T 67, 2-3. 55 T 67-68. 56 T 73. 57 T 70. 58 T 70, 21-22; 24-25. 59 T 71. -- 18 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 17 when received by the accused.60 After she sent it, she received a notification that the accused had screenshotted the image. She felt insecure and that her trust had been broken. She wanted him to think they were her breasts.61 89 She felt insecure because she thought the accused would share them around with other people and say they were her breasts.62 TC said that a screenshotted photograph sent to someone on Snapchat does not capture the sender’s name or handle.63 90 After sending the image of the breasts and receiving a notification that the accused had screenshotted it, she blocked him. There were no further messages between them on Snapchat.64 91 At one point during the Snapchat communications, TC received a photograph of a black screen with text on it about what the accused wanted to do in the hotel room. TC explained that to do this, a photograph is taken and then text is inserted and it is received as a red snap.65 Facebook messages post charged offence 92 TC was not sure why she sent a photograph of her face showing a nose piercing.66 Later in evidence she said she wanted to show him she had her nose pierced but was not sure why she wanted to show him that.67 She sent it after the accused wrote, ‘I haven’t seen you in ages at softball’.68 She was having a season off softball due to her mental health but then corrected her evidence that it was the 2024/2025 season during which she did not play.69 93 TC said she wrote ‘I’m fucking done’ after she discovered the accused had screenshotted the picture of the breasts she had sent him. She was angry. When she wrote, ‘leave me alone’, and the accused responded, ‘what why’ TC explained she then wrote ‘delete that fucking photo now’ because she wanted him to delete the photograph of the breasts. TC wrote ‘So much for breaking my trust’ because he had taken a screenshot and therefore, she had no trust in him. She did not tell him that they were not an image of her breasts.70 94 After the accused repeated that he had not saved anything and still wanted to talk to TC, she responded, ‘really want to know what is going on cunt’. TC explained in evidence that she had a lot going on at that point but this was 60 T 71-72. 61 T 73. 62 T 73. 63 T 74. 64 T 75. 65 T 75-76. 66 T 76. 67 T 85. 68 T 76. 69 T 76-77. 70 T 78-79. -- 19 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 18 unconnected to the accused. TC wrote ‘you’re in fucking love with me’ because the accused had responded ‘Okay makes me sad’ when she told him she was blocking him. 71 95 TC could not recall anything about the phone call between her and the accused which lasted for one minute. She was not talking, only listening during that phone call. She did not say anything at all.72 After the call he kept going on trying to get her to stay in his life.73 She subsequently wrote ‘I’m sorry I’m not perfect’ because she had a lot of things going on.74 When she did not get a response, she wrote ‘Exactly, got nothing to fucking say’ because she wanted ‘some reassurance that I was still good enough’.75 96 After the accused wrote ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’ TC wrote a message which she then unsent. She could not remember what was in that message. She then wrote ‘I don’t want to talk about it’ and explained that she did not want to talk about the way she felt about everything. Her message ‘We can’t keep doing this’ referred to the inappropriate relationship they had ‘because of the photos that were being sent back and forth’.76 Prior to the Snapchat messages, they did not have a relationship.77 97 When TC wrote, ‘But I need to do this for you in case it ever gets out’ she knew that if the relationship between them kept going the accused could get in trouble and she was scared she would get in trouble with the police. However, TC said she did not think there was ever a conversation about keeping it a secret.78 98 TC interpreted the accused’s messages ‘Did I scare you? With what I said’ as referring to his message ‘you like you for you, you don’t have to pretend to be anyone with me just be yourself’ and ‘you don’t have to be prefect to me. It’s your imperfections that make you prefect to me’. 99 TC was asked what the accused said which prompted her to write ‘I’ve recently been raped. It brang back all the memories of what he did to me’ and she gave the following evidence: Q You then said ‘You want to know what’s going on?’ ‘Yes’ he replies. Your response is ‘I’ve recently been raped. It brang back all the memories of what he did to me.’ Now, I’m not going to ask you any questions about what, anything in the past, okay. I’m just trying to understand what it is that he said that made you respond to this. A The question with ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’ 71 T 79-80. 72 T 86. 73 T 80-81. 74 T 85. 75 T 86. 76 T 86-87. 77 T 88. 78 T 88-89. -- 20 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 19 Q I’m sorry, I’m going to repeat the question just to make sure that you understood the question and then I’ll come back to your response now, okay. A Yes. Q So the question was what prompted you to give the response, ‘I’ve recently been raped. It brang back all the memories of what he did to me.’ What did [the accused] say to prompt you to say that. A The Snapchat messages so with what he wanted to do to me in the hotel room. HER HONOUR Q [TC] a little earlier on p. 7 you said ‘You want to know what is going on?’ A Yeah. Q And [the accused] responded ‘Yes’. Did that question and answer have any connection with you then saying ‘I have recently been raped. It brang back all the memories of what he did to me’. A Yes it did.79 100 TC did not know why she wrote, ‘ do you have autism’.80 When she told him ‘I’m hurting’ she was referring to personal things in her life unconnected with the accused. When the accused wrote, ‘I honestly feel like an arsehole’… ‘Because I caused you pain’ as far as she was concerned, he was not the source of her pain.81 101 TC explained that when she messaged the accused telling him to forget who she was and that this was what she needed, she wanted to go separate ways. She then gave this evidence: Q You say ‘This is hurting me to say but I need you to do this’. A Yes. Q What was hurting you to say. A Because I didn’t want to seem like the person who was going to walk away. Q Why was that a concern to you if you seemed like that person. A Because I knew I didn’t want [the accused] to think lower of me and that I was a person that would give up on someone. Q [The accused] then says ‘okay’, there is an emoji, ‘If you want you can block me on socials if that will help you’. What was the emoji. A Depressed or sad face emoji. 79 T 90, 4-38; T 91, 1-5. 80 T 94. 81 T 95. -- 21 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 20 Q You then say ‘goodbye’ with an emoji, what is the emoji that you sent. A A crying face. Q Why did you send that emoji. A For the same reason I just gave before, I didn’t want him to think any less of me and like I was someone who was going to give up. Q He has then responded with an emoji, which one is that. A The sad face emoji. Q There is then another message, a reaction to your message. I should say, another emoji, can you see that at 10:49:44 seconds. A Yep. Q Which emoji is that. A The same one of him reacting to that message. Q He has then responded ‘goodbye’ and two emojis if you could just explain the emojis for us. A Both sad emojis. Q You then write, ‘You meant a lot to me’. What did you mean by that. A Because he helped me with the advice for softball umpiring. HER HONOUR Q Are you referring to the five minutes that you spoke to him on one day of the Masters Tournament. A Yes. XN Q [The accused] has then reacted with a love heart. A Yeah. Q How did you interpret that love heart. A Just that he liked my message. Q You then say ‘Promise me you aren’t crying’ did that matter to you whether he was crying or not. A No. HER HONOUR Q If it didn’t matter to you why did you write that [TC]. -- 22 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 21 A I’m not sure.82 102 When the accused said he was crying a little, and TC responded ‘prove it’ she wrote that because she did not believe him. When he asked ‘how’ and she said, ‘I don’t know’ and then ‘go and have sex with your ex’ TC said this was just something she wrote because the accused had told her on Snapchat that he was not in a relationship with N.83 103 TC sent the accused’s partner, N, a series of messages via Facebook messenger. She asked N if she and the accused were still together. N replied yes. TC then knew that the accused had lied to her. After this she sent two further messages to N which were then unsent and the content was now not visible. TC said that was her ‘explaining to [N] what happened.’ She could not recall what she wrote but she told N about what had happened on Snapchat between her and the accused. She then said that she told N that the accused sent her two photographs, one with his hand over his crotch with clothes on and the other of an exposed penis. She did not tell N that she had sent the accused an image of breasts. TC screenshotted the message exchange and it appears in P2. She did that because she sent it to her friend, CS. When asked why she unsent the messages in which she told N what the accused had done, she said ‘Cos I didn’t think that it was right her hearing it from me over a message.’ TC explained that she unsent the messages before N saw them and she knew this because her profile picture was not underneath the messages when she unsent them. On P2, the profile picture appears underneath the two unsent messages.84 104 TC sent the screenshot of the messages to N to the accused at 11.01.12pm with a message ‘you’re a fucking liar’. She told the accused she was going to the police. She intended to go to the police once she got back from Queensland to tell them about the messages on Facebook and the photographs on Snapchat. She tried to call the accused at 11.04.06pm ‘to try and figure out where we were going to go from here’.85 When asked what she was hoping to figure out, she said: More so the fact that because I found out what happened, if we could go separate ways that. That [N] and [the accused] were still together and by them being together, if we could go separate ways and leave what happened behind us.86 105 She was not able to speak with the accused because he had blocked her. She then gave this evidence: Q You said that you were trying to talk to him to figure out a way to leave what happened behind you. A Yep. 82 T 95, 35-38; T 96, T 97, 1-10. 83 T 97-98. 84 T 98-101. 85 T 102, 37-38. 86 T 103, 3-7. -- 23 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 22 Q How did that fit with your intention to go to the police. A Well, because I wasn’t going to go to the police unless it was, unless we both agreed that we were going to leave it behind us, but the phone call never happened. Q I see, so if you’d spoken to him and he’d agreed to leave it all behind you, are you saying you would have not gone to the police. A Yes, that’s correct. Q For him to leave everything behind, what would that involve. A Like not to talk to me anymore and not to talk about what happened between us to anyone else. Q When you say ‘what happened’ does that include the messages you sent to him on Snapchat and vice versa. A Yes.87 Initial complaint 106 TC said she did not disclose any further details to her father, over and above those she mentioned in her second prescribed interview. She did not have an independent recollection of the conversation with her father. However, she said it was around 7pm (Cairns’ time) and she was in the backyard with her father because he was having a cigarette. She spoke with her father after she had a shower and she had received the photographs of the accused with his hand over his penis under his pants and the exposed penis. She then said she spoke to her father after she sent the accused the image of the breasts and after she had blocked him. She disclosed this to her father because he could tell there was something wrong and asked her what was going on.88 107 TC then said that her father had asked her if she was okay and then asked her what was going on. She told him she was all right but she had some stuff going on. He asked her what stuff that was and that was when she made the disclosure. Her father said that they would talk about it later because she had said ‘I don’t really want to talk about it now’.89 108 TC was then taken to what she said in her second prescribed interview. After being reminded she had told the interviewer her father had said ‘you don’t need to deal with that, you’re too young, just block him and just explain to him what’s wrong’ she was then asked if she followed her father’s advice. She said: A Yes because that’s when I blocked him on – so I only blocked him on Snapchat, and then after he said that, because that was just before I went to bed, I then blocked him 87 T 103, 14-32. 88 T 104-105. 89 T 106. -- 24 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 23 – he then blocked me on Facebook Messenger and then I also blocked him on Facebook Messenger. Q Okay, let’s just break that down so I understand the time chronology. So at around 7pm in Cairns after dinner you’ve had this conversation with your father and this conversation was before or after you blocked [the accused] on Snapchat. A Yes. Q Sorry, which is it, before or after. A Before, no – sorry, after I blocked him on Snapchat.90 109 TC said it was about half an hour after the conversation on Snapchat ended that she started communicating on Facebook messenger with the accused.91 After 12 January 2024 the accused did not communicate with her on any social media platform.92 Elaboration of initial complaint 110 CS was a family friend and TC had known him for about seven years. He was about twenty years old now. TC described CS as friend.93 111 On 13 January 2024, TC messaged CS on Snapchat because he was a close friend of hers and also knew the accused. CS and the accused were both softball umpires. Snapchat messages between TC and CS on 13 January 2024 were tendered: Exhibit P54.94 112 TC said she asked CS if he had the accused on Snapchat because she ‘wanted to talk to [the accused] and try and clear the air between the pair of us’. She was hoping ‘To try and leave it behind us’.95 113 When CS said he did not have the accused on Snapchat, TC wrote, ‘I’m going to fucking take him to the police station’. She explained: HER HONOUR Q [TC] you said you initially asked [CS] if he had [the accused] on snap because if he did, you asked [CS] to pass on messages or communicate with [the accused] in order to clear the air. Did that change after you found that [CS] was not – did not have [the accused] on snap. A Yes. Q Is that why you then wrote ‘I’m going to fucking take him to the police station’. 90 T 107, 19-31. 91 T 110. 92 T 111. 93 T 111-112. 94 T 112. 95 T 116. -- 25 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 24 A Yes. Q Do I understand that you wrote that because you realised you couldn’t communicate with [the accused] through [CS]. A Well, I just couldn’t communicate with him in general. Q So was this the alternative scenario. A Yes.96 … HER HONOUR Q [TC] if [CS] had [the accused] on snap, that is, when you asked him ‘Do you have [the accused] on snap?’ if he said ‘Yes’ what would you have done. A Probably asked [CS] to make a group chat with [the accused] to see if [the accused] and I could resolve and try and leave everything behind us.97 114 TC told CS the accused was a ‘pedo’ because he was someone older who was into younger kids. After TC asked CS if he wanted to see the ‘dick pic’ that the accused sent her and he said yes, she sent it in an instant snap.98 She sent that to CS because she needed someone to vent to about what happened.99 115 TC told CS he could not see all the messages because she had blocked him on everything. She explained that once she blocked him on Facebook messenger, she deleted all the messages. She was later shown by police how to perform a data download to retrieve the Facebook messages.100 She sent two screenshots of Facebook messages between her and the accused to CS which were the following messages: Accused: …didn’t break your trust TC: I’m blocking you Accused: Ok makes me sad TC: Why. You are fucking in love with me Accused: I like you a bit why TC: why do you think this Accused: Can I call you 96 T 116, 25-38; T 117, 1-2. 97 T 118, 19-25. 98 T 117. 99 T 118. 100 T 118-120. -- 26 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 25 [missed audio call] TC: Why? TC: exactly got nothing to fucking say Accused: You don’t have too be prefect to me it’s your imperfections that make your prefect to me TC: Ok Accused: Did anything else happen in your dream about us? TC: [R] I don’t want to talk about it 116 TC said she made those screenshots after she blocked the accused and chose those two series of messages because they were the ‘main messages’. When asked what she meant by ‘main’ she said she did not know what she meant. When asked why she chose those two out of all the messages she said she was not sure.101 117 She told CS that she did not want him to tell her mother. This was because her mother would have become protective and then gone straight to the police. She did not want her mother to go to police because she was still in Cairns and was not ready to deal with the fact it happened.102 118 TC said that she knew the accused was playing a softball game which CS was umpiring because the accused told her during the Snapchat conversation. He told her this before he sent the photographs but after he discussed the hotel room. He told her he was playing a softball game at the time that he was messaging her. It was either not his turn to bat or he was on the bench. TC said a softball game lasted 75 minutes which did not include breaks.103 119 At the time TC was communicating with CS on Snapchat she was doubting whether she should go or not go to the police.104 She told CS that she was scared and said in evidence that she was scared to go to the police and tell her story because she might get in trouble for talking to someone who was older than her and scared of being judged.105 120 TC was reminded that she told the interviewer in the second prescribed interview that during a telephone call with CS he told her that the best thing to do was to go to the police and that it took a little bit of convincing over the telephone. TC could not recall that phone call but said that would have happened when she got back in Adelaide.106 101 T 120. 102 T 120-121. 103 T 122-123. 104 T 124. 105 T 125. 106 T 126. -- 27 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 26 Cross-examination Location when TC received the ‘dick-pic’ 121 TC agreed that in her first prescribed interview she said that she was lying in bed on TikTok when the accused sent her a ‘dick-pic’ and she then blocked him. TC agreed that in her second prescribed interview she said that she was sitting on the couch next to her father and she opened her phone and saw the photograph of the penis. TC agreed that in her statement to police dated 26 September 2025 she said that the photograph of the penis came through whilst she was in the shower. She agreed that she could not recall when she received the photographs of the penises.107 Snapchat data download 122 TC agreed that she tried to download the data from her Snapchat account to show the contact between her and the accused but the download did not show any messages or whether they had ever been contacts.108 Delete after viewing setting 123 The passages from her evidence in chief in which she said that if the delete after viewing setting was used on Snapchat a photo could not be viewed more than once were put to TC in cross-examination and she disagreed that she had said that in evidence. After being shown the transcript she accepted that she had. She then said the delete after viewing setting would apply to photographs. It was then put to her that she had said in her second prescribed interview that the accused kept replaying the photograph of the breasts and she denied she said that. The relevant passage from the interview in P1 was played to TC and she then agreed she had said that.109 124 TC then gave the following evidence: Q …Based on your evidence of the delete immediately function was set up it cannot be true that you saw [the accused] replaying the photograph; correct. A Incorrect. Q You still maintain that despite the delete immediately function being set up and having conceded that the photographs would be deleted after they’re viewed, this photograph was still present. A Yes, correct. Q So you disagree with me if I was to suggest that the photograph could only be viewed a maximum of once. 107 T 178-179. 108 T179-180. 109 T 181-185. -- 28 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 27 A I disagree with you.110 125 It was put to TC that in her second prescribed interview she said that the difference between Facebook messenger and Snapchat was that she knew with Snapchat the messages went away and she could not get data download. She did not accept she said that.111 She was shown the video of the interview and then accepted she had said that.112 Preserving the Snapchat messages 126 TC agreed she could have screenshotted the Snapchat messages the accused sent her about wanting to have sex with her in a hotel room. By this stage she did not want to send any more messages to him but she did not screenshot any of his messages.113 TC agreed her sister was with her in Cairns and had a smartphone. She agreed she could have asked her sister or father to photograph the messages from the accused. If she had done so, she believed the accused would not have known.114 127 TC said that she did not keep any evidence of the photograph of the breasts which she sent to the accused. She agreed that she could have saved the image to her camera roll on her phone and it would have had a date and time stamp.115 Borderline personality disorder 128 TC agreed that when aged 14 she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD). She said her symptoms of BPD were impulsive outbursts, impulsive behaviour, fear of abandonment and the urge to self-harm. TC said she had mood swings and became angry easily. TC said she formed attachments to people easily and had a fear of being left and would try everything she could to make them stay. TC said she makes threats to ‘unalive’ herself which she explained meant commit suicide. On 12 January 2024 she was taking medication prescribed for her BPD, namely 40mg Fluoxetine daily.116 The medication makes her mood stable and she feels a lot better within herself. On 12 January 2024, TC was in a bad mental health state because of a court matter involving her ex-partner.117 Facebook messages 129 TC agreed that her message ‘delete that fucking photo now’ could have come across ‘aggressive’ but she did not write it in an aggressive way.118 TC denied that during the one minute phone call with the accused, she threatened to tell his wife that he had been sending her inappropriate pictures unless he supplied her with 110 T 185, 20-31. 111 T 187. 112 T 188. 113 T 189. 114 T 190-191. 115 T 191-192. 116 T 198-199. 117 T 200. 118 T 202. -- 29 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 28 drugs and alcohol. TC denied that she messaged the accused’s wife hoping that she would ask the accused about the contact between the two of them and he would then comply with her demands.119 130 TC agreed that in the Facebook photograph sent to her by the accused at 12.20pm on 12 January 2024 he was wearing a yellow top.120 Softball 131 TC said she must have registered with Softball SA as an umpire before the Masters Tournament in October 2023.121 She took her umpiring test before she participated in the SAPSASA tournament for Diamond Sports Academy at her high school.122 As a registered umpire she received the draws for all the competitions. On 12 January 2024 she knew that CS was umpiring the game in which the accused was playing.123 132 One of the rules of softball is that players are not allowed to use their phones even when they are not in the game. TC was pretty sure this was a safety precaution and was probably to prevent player injury from a foul ball.124 133 TC agreed that in her first prescribed interview she said that the accused asked for her Snapchat to send her videos of softball. She agreed that in the Facebook messages in P2 she did not ask for any softball or umpiring tips from the accused.125 TC disagreed with the proposition that having only spoken to the accused for five minutes during the Masters tournament he could not have helped her an awful lot with her umpiring skills. She agreed that in her second prescribed interview she said that from a coaching and player relationship the accused helped her a lot with umpiring skills.126 TC explained that when she went on to say in the second prescribed interview, ‘there was even times – no, that wasn’t him, never mind’ she was thinking of someone else who had helped her with umpiring by watching her from the sidelines and giving her tips.127 Contact with CS 134 TC confirmed her earlier evidence that there were no further messages between her and CS on 13 January 2024 than those which appear in P5 and she had produced the entire conversation with CS to the police.128 TC was then shown 119 T 211-212. 120 T 212-213. 121 T 204. 122 T 204-205. 123 T 206. 124 T 207. 125 T 208. 126 T 209-210. 127 T 210-211. 128 T 214, 216. -- 30 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 29 MFI P4 (the corresponding Snapchat messages produced by CS) and agreed there were further messages between the two of them on 13 January 2024.129 135 When CS messaged TC asking her to send a snap of her in the shower, albeit not a nude, TC said she could not recall if she did so. That was not something she would do with anyone. She asked if CS and his girlfriend E were still together in order to try and deflect the conversation.130 136 TC said she met with Detective Manson in July 2024 and they went through all of the Snapchat messages with CS on TC’s phone and together decided which ones should be screenshotted.131 137 TC then gave this evidence: Q You never told [CS] that [the accused] had asked for pictures of your body; isn’t that correct. A Yes that’s correct Q You never told [CS] that [the accused] had said he wanted to have sex with you; is that correct. A I don’t believe so, no. Q You never told [CS] that [the accused] wanted to book a hotel room for you; is that correct. A That’s correct. Q All you said to [CS] was that [the accused] had sent you a picture of his penis; isn’t that correct. A And telling me how he feels.132 TC’s previous dealings with police 138 TC agreed that on 13 July 2023 she reported to police that she had been raped by her ex-partner on 22 June 2023. She told police that she had received a lot of abusive messages on Snapchat from her ex-partner. TC said she believed the police officer told her that he could not see the messages in the phone download and she told them all the messages were under her old user ID. TC denied waiting three weeks to report the matter because she knew by then the Snapchat messages would not be recoverable.133 139 TC agreed that on 22 April 2025 she was spoken to by police after she became upset with her boyfriend. She said he had ‘bashed the shit out of me’. She agreed 129 T 217. 130 T 218. 131 T 219-221. 132 T 221, 18-29. 133 T 229-230. -- 31 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 30 that she threatened to delete all of his business files and he locked himself in the bathroom and she used a knife to unlock the door.134 140 TC agreed that in April 2021 police spoke to her about an allegation of rape made against TC by her former girlfriend. She was aware that her girlfriend alleged that she had digitally penetrated her vagina while they were sharing a bed together. TC was aware that her girlfriend later said she had overembellished her account. TC denied asking her girlfriend to change her account.135 Re-examination 141 TC said that she received the photograph of the exposed penis around 7.30pm but this was a guess.136 142 TC said that on first viewing of the photograph of the breasts it could have been screenshotted and stickered and saved. She would have been notified if the photograph had been screenshotted or saved but not if it had been stickered.137 143 TC said if a photograph has not been opened it remained there. Once opened it then disappeared unless it had been screenshotted, stickered or saved. What appeared on the phone is a red snap, that is, a red square with the words ‘new snap’. What is in it cannot be seen until it is opened.138 144 TC did not speak to her sister about what had happened with the accused because her sister was 21 months younger than her. It did not cross her mind to ask for her sister’s phone without telling her what she wanted to do with it.139 145 TC said she did not save the breasts photograph because she did not want the accused to see she had saved it or for him to think that she was going to use it against him or send it to people. TC said she saved the original image in her camera roll but she deleted it immediately after she sent it to the accused. When she saved it in her camera roll it had a date and a time attributed to it.140 146 TC grabbed the green screen filter, selected the photograph of breasts she wanted to use. She then took a dry snap which was a photograph with nothing in it and then when there were no shadows, or body parts she sent it to the accused.141 134 T 231. 135 T 232-233. The privilege against self-incrimination was explained to TC and she chose not to get legal advice and chose to answer this question. 136 T 236. 137 T 240. 138 T 240-241. 139 T 241-242. 140 T 242-243. 141 T 244. -- 32 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 31 147 There was nothing about the photograph of her face with a nose piercing about which she was self-conscious or insecure or she would want the accused to delete.142 148 The accused was wearing a red polo shirt and TC was pretty sure it was an Adelaide United soccer shirt. The logo was on the left side of the chest.143 Further cross-examination 149 After closing addresses commenced, and in consequence of submissions made by Mr Roche for the accused, I permitted the prosecutor, Ms Linale to re- open the prosecution case to produce TC for further cross-examination. 150 TC agreed that in her second statement on 26 September 2025 she said that in the Snapchat communications the accused said he wanted to book a hotel room for the night for the two of them.144 TC was not sure whether that was the first time she had mentioned this.145 151 TC agreed that when she gave evidence, she said the accused asked her on Snapchat how she would feel about engaging in sexual activity with him. She thought she had not mentioned this in either of her prescribed interviews. She was not sure if she had mentioned this in either of her two statements. She was not sure if the first time she mentioned this was in her evidence.146 152 TC agreed that in her second prescribed interview she said that the accused told her he wanted to have sex and pleasure with her and how he would do it and how it would make him feel and the pleasure he would get from it. She was not sure if she had mentioned this in her first prescribed interview.147 153 TC could not recall if she had not previously mentioned in either of prescribed interviews the fact that she was sending pictures of the pool at her father’s house or her face to the accused on 12 January 2024. She did not believe that she mentioned it for the first time in her evidence at trial.148 154 TC agreed that the first time she mentioned that there had been a Snapchat communication about how the pleasure would be between her and the accused if they had sex was in her statement of 26 September 2025.149 142 T 246. 143 T 247. 144 T 470. 145 T 471. 146 T 471-472. 147 T 472-473. 148 T 473-474. 149 T 482-483. -- 33 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 32 155 TC agreed that in her statement of 26 September 2025 she did not tell police that during the Snapchat communications, the accused asked her how she would feel during sexual activity.150 Detective Joel Manson 156 Detective Manson was recalled following the evidence of TC. The accused’s record of interview on 28 August 2024 was tendered by consent: Exhibit P6. The transcript was marked for identification: MFIP6A. There were certain questions in that interview to which defence counsel did not object but which I considered were improper and should be disregarded. Counsel agreed and therefore I have excluded from my consideration of the accused’s record of interview, the following question and answers as set out in MFI-P6A: 1011-1013; 1447-1455; 1467-1468; 1481- 1486 and 1499-1515. The accused’s record of interview 157 The accused was interviewed by Detective Manson on 28 August 2024. The video of the interview was played in court. It was lengthy, occupying approximately one hour and forty-five minutes. As soon as the allegation that he communicated with TC with the intention of making her amenable to sexual activity was put to the accused he said that was not correct and he was aware of the allegations. The accused then explained that the documents Detective Manson had in his possession were documents he had tried to give to the previous investigating officer. Those documents were P7. The accused explained that these documents showed that he was playing softball between 6.00pm and 8.15pm at the time he was allegedly communicating with TC and sending her inappropriate photographs. They also established his movements after the game. 158 The following is a summary of the balance of the record of interview: • On 12 January 2024, accused picked his children up from school at Craigmore and took them home. He was then told that it was school holidays and he said he would have to check if they were at OSHC. He said either way he would have been with his children. He finished work in the morning but he could not remember if they were at OSHC or at home. • The accused worked early mornings and his wife worked days. He visited his wife at her work at Ampol, Munno Para. He took his daughter to dance at 5.30pm. • When the Detective first came to his house and mentioned TC, he knew exactly what they were talking about. He told the Detective straight away that she had contacted him through social media. He already had her on social media because his wife had been friends with her mother for quite some time. He had known TC since she was knee high to a grasshopper through softball. • He did not have any direct contact with TC in softball and never coached or umpired her. 150 T 486. -- 34 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 33 • The accused had TC on Facebook Messenger. He did not think he added her to any other social media platforms. • He knew TC worked at the Direct Factory at Parafield. She would tell him things like ‘work was crap’ and he thought he went in there one day and she said she saw him walk around the shop. Those were the sorts of communications they had but it was nothing weird. • When the detectives first came to his house and mentioned TC he knew exactly what they were talking about and he said straight away that she had contacted him on social media claiming she had been attacked by a boyfriend or someone she was seeing or dating and asked him if he could buy her drugs and alcohol. He thought it was the 12th of January but it may have been the 11th. TC told him that she was using drugs and alcohol to cope with the fact that she had been sexually attacked. He told her that he was going to have to report it because he was a mandatory reporter. He told her he would have to tell her mother and she then said ‘if you do that I am going to claim that you sent inappropriate things to me’. He then told her he was done and deleted the messages. • These communications were on Facebook and she contacted him via Instagram a few days later and he deleted her. She was saying the same things on Instagram, that if he did not buy her drugs or alcohol or if he told her mother she was going to tell people he sent her inappropriate images and was going to tell his wife and his teenage daughter. • The accused knew CS through the Softball community. During the interview the accused searched on his phone for messages between them on 8 July 2024 (now P8). He messaged CS trying to get more evidence for his defence. He could recall CS telling him on an umpiring camp at Mount Barker late 2023/early 2024 when they were sharing a room that TC had claimed she was attacked and had asked for alcohol. CS told him TC was trouble. • The accused said that his reputation had been damaged and he was trying not to let everyone know what was going on. He said, ‘once I’m cleared I don’t want everyone sort of knowing what’s going on’. • The accused said he had seen TC around at softball and had asked her how she was going, how her mother was and he knew she went on a holiday to Queensland where her father lives. He knew TC’s family. He had never seen her outside softball and had never gone to her school or work. However, he did go to the FILA shop and later she messaged him saying she saw him at her work. His communications with TC were friendly banter similar to the communications he has with his daughter’s friends. The accused offered to show Detective Manson examples of how he communicated with his daughter’s friends but Detective Manson declined. The accused insisted because he wanted to show him he was genuine and that it was the same sort of thing with TC. The accused said he was happy to provide those communications to police. • The accused said he and TC were friends on Facebook but he did not communicate with her on any other social media. • The accused said he had Snapchat but he did not think he added TC unless she added him. He could not remember the conversation he had with TC just before he blocked her. He did not think he exchanged pictures with TC over Facebook -- 35 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 34 Messenger or Instagram. He did not think she had sent him a picture but said his phone had been seized and police had all of his passwords. • The accused could not remember the initial message exchange with TC on Facebook but said it could have been wishing her a happy birthday. He would not talk to her often on Facebook. He thought he may have messaged her happy birthday around the time and either that day or a couple of days later she asked for the drugs and alcohol. • The accused said the events were now 9 months ago and his memory would have been fresher six or seven months earlier. • When he was shown the penis photograph by the first detective he said he was ‘happy to dack myself now mate like you can compare and compare.’ • When the accused was shown the Facebook messages (P2) he said he recognised bits of the conversation. He then spent some time reading the messages, accepting that his recollection that it was TC who saw him at her place of work was wrong and it was him who had seen her at her work. He did not recall TC sending him the picture of her face with a nose piercing. He then said he must have added TC on Snapchat but he could not remember that. • When the accused read the Facebook messages on 12 January 2024 from 9.31pm he seemed visibly surprised and said ‘obviously more happened than I thought it did’. He then said ‘yeah, okay, some of that stuff doesn’t make me look too good does it?’ • The accused was taken to the first series of messages commencing at 9.31pm, including the message ‘delete that fucking photo now’. He was asked what that was all about and he said he did not remember. He assumed it was the photograph she sent of her face. He said this was around the time that she asked for drugs and alcohol and he told her he was going to tell her mother. When asked where those messages were, he said he did not know and they may have been on Instagram. • He tried to call TC, because he wanted to tell her she would ruin his softball career and things like that. At this time, he was freaking out because he thought she was going to say he had sent her photographs. • The accused said that during the one-minute telephone call he told her there was no need for her to tell people he sent her stuff because it would ruin his career. When the accused wrote ‘you don’t have to be prefect its your imperfections that make you prefect to me’ he was just trying to be nice. • The accused said he asked ‘did anything else happen in your dream about us’ because TC had said something about a dream and he ignored it when she first messaged him. TC had said something about having a dream about him. He was not sure if that was in Messenger or during the phone call. • The accused could not recall what he was talking about when he asked her if he scared her with what he was talking about and he did not know what the reference to ‘I need to do this for you in case it ever gets out’ meant. When he wrote ‘I would never do that to you, ever’ after TC told him she had been raped and it brought back all the memories, he said, ‘yeah, well cos I wouldn’t. Like who would rape someone? It’s a horrible thing to do to someone.’ He said he was trying to reassure her at that stage. -- 36 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 35 • The accused explained that when he wrote ‘I would never tell anyone about us, so don’t stress about people finding out’ he said she was worried about people knowing that they were talking on Facebook. • The accused said he did not know why he wrote that he felt like ‘an arsehole’ but the reference to causing her pain was because she had told him something he said brought back memories of being attacked. • When he wrote ‘I’m crying a little’ he was not crying but trying to be nice. He did not know what TC’s reference to ‘go have sex with your ex’ meant because he had been with his partner for over 11 years. • The accused said there was nothing of a sexual nature in the Facebook messages and Detective Manson said ‘no’. Detective Manson told the accused there were a few things he thought were inappropriate. • The accused denied that he told TC over Snapchat that he wanted to do sexual things to her or asked her to send pictures of her body and breasts. • The accused said the events occurred nine months ago and he did not remember everything that happened. He provided the documentation about his whereabouts on 12 January 2024 to demonstrate that he did not have time to send her inappropriate images. He said, ‘so what am I doing on a softball diamond sitting there taking photos of my, of my, my junk or sending inappropriate things?’. • The accused said he had a traumatic brain injury - Idiopathic Intercranial Hypertension. He has had that for 6 or 7 years and if affects his memory. • When further allegations were put to the accused, including that he wanted to bend her over and grab her by the hair and have sex with her the accused said, ‘so this is stuff that she’s just said…so where the evidence that I’ve said that? There’s no evidence that I’ve said this apart from her, from what she said’. • The accused denied asking TC for nudes or telling her he was horny. • The accused denied sending her an image of his exposed penis or one with his hand sitting on his penis over his clothing. He was then shown the image in P3 and he said ‘I’m happy to pull my dick out right now and show yous that is not my penis. That’s the best way to settle it. Right now I’ll drop my dacks and show you that that does not match my penis’. • The accused asked Detective Manson ‘what makes her word any better than my word? The fact that she came to you first?’ • He did not recall having a Snapchat conversation with TC. He accepted he asked her for her Snapchat but he did not remember her accepting. • The accused said no one had looked into the documents he provided months ago or asked for his side of the story. The accused said, ‘there’s no evidence that I sent her anything in an inappropriate manner. It is her word only…and what makes her word better than anybody else’s word?’ • The accused said he would have been at work until 2pm on 12 January 2024. He was then with his children between 2 and 5pm. He would have visited his wife at -- 37 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 36 work for 45 minutes and then dropped his daughter off at dance and he then went to softball. His life was very routine. He dropped his daughter off to his wife’s work and he had a fight with his wife because he thought that her dance finished later than it did and it was his first game back at softball after surgery. 159 Detective Manson said the accused provided documents to police regarding his whereabouts on 12 January 2024: Exhibit P7. The accused referred to some of those documents during his record of interview and said they proved he was telling the truth.151 On 3 August 2024, the accused sent via email a message exchange between himself and CS: Exhibit P8. 160 Detective Manson asked TC to perform a data download of her Facebook account on 7 July 2024. TC emailed him the results which are P2. He did not visually inspect her phone to look for any Facebook messages between her and the accused because she told him she had blocked him and the messages were not available on her phone anymore. He did not visually inspect any Snapchat messages between TC and the accused because she told him they no longer existed.152 161 Detective Manson did not ask TC for her mobile telephone so it could be examined and a data extraction performed because she told him that all the messages were no longer on her phone. He asked her to perform a data download from Snapchat and she emailed the results which revealed that there was no data showing communications between her and the accused. On 8 September 2024, Detective Manson asked TC to perform a data download from Instagram and the download did not show any communications with the accused. He did not look at her Instagram account on her phone. This was because a data download would retrieve more information than was on a person’s phone. Detective Manson could not find the accused as a contact of TC’s on Instagram.153 162 Information from the Snapchat help page was tendered as a business record with the consent of defence counsel: Exhibit P14. In summary, P14 established the following matters: • Delete is the default position meaning most messages sent over Snapchat will be automatically deleted once they have been viewed or expired. • Snapchat servers are designed to automatically delete all one-on-one and Group Chat Snaps after they have been viewed by all recipients. • In one-on-one conversations Snaps can be set to delete after 24 hours. • Snapchat servers are designed automatically to delete unopened one-on-one Snaps after 31 days and unopened Snaps to a Group Chat after 7 days. 151 T 257. 152 T 332. 153 T 333-334. -- 38 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 37 • A Snap can be saved in Chat by pressing and holding on it while viewing or directly afterwards. A Snap can be deleted in Chat by pressing and holding on it and tapping delete. When a Snap is deleted from Chat it will be set to delete from the servers. Snapchat makes its best attempt to remove it from the recipient’s device. • In one-on-one conversations, Chats are automatically deleted by default 24 hours after viewing. Chats can be set to delete automatically right after viewing them, 7 days after viewing them or never. • Snapchat metadata (information about a Snap or Chat such as date, time, sender and receiver) is stored for 30 days and then deleted. If Snapchat needs to keep metadata for longer, personal identifiers are removed. • After a Snap is created stickers can be added to it. To do this, tap on the preview screen, outline the object to be copied with a finger and lift the finger and it will be pasted onto the Snap as a sticker. Stickers made with scissors will be automatically saved in the sticker drawer. 163 Detective Manson did not conduct any research into the type of content that might offend the community guidelines referred to in P14 resulting in removal of offending content. Detective Manson said from his previous experience Snapchat will have retained for 90 days a record of TC’s use of Snapchat on a particular day.154 164 On 10 February 2025 TC provided Detective Manson with a copy of the sticker of a penis that she had saved on her phone. He viewed it on her phone and then asked her to send it to him via email. She took a photograph in Snapchat of a table or wall and overlaid the picture of the penis onto the photograph and sent it to him via email. That photograph is P3. When Detective Manson viewed it on TC’s phone it was just a cut out picture floating with nothing behind it.155 165 Detective Manson performed a number of reverse image searches from P3 using Google Reverse Image search. He did this because he suspected it was not an image from the accused and was probably a catfish image because the accused’s build was different from the man in P3.156 He located the image on a website called doujin.bar. That was an adult pornography website. He subsequently located the same image on 16 March 2025 on the website hbfites.uk, an adult pornography website. It was the fullest image he was able to identify. The searched image was tendered: Exhibit P15. Once he downloaded P15 he ran it through a reverse Google Image search and found other websites where it had appeared.157 166 Detective Manson did not examine TC’s internet search history on her mobile phone to determine whether that photograph had been searched for on her device. He said he did not think this was something that was considered at the time. The accused’s phone had been seized and everything on it reviewed and there was 154 T 336-337. 155 T 339-340. 156 T 340. 157 T 342-343. -- 39 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 38 nothing to suggest that the accused had downloaded that picture from the internet.158 167 Detective Manson said that the accused’s mobile telephone was seized on 20 February 2024 and provided to the Digital Evidence Section (DES) on 14 March 2024 for analysis. No evidence was located in relation to the image in P3 or contact with TC. The report from DES revealed that the accused had Snapchat and Facebook installed on his phone but there were no communications found between the accused and TC on either of those platforms. He did not find any evidence of an Instagram account.159 168 Detective Manson agreed that an earlier version of the same penis was shown to the accused in the record of interview and he denied it was his penis. He was aware from Detective Graham that the accused had denied it was his penis early on in the process and offered to show his penis so it could be compared with the picture. Detective Manson could not recall why he did not tell the accused that he suspected it was not his penis. He said a decision was made that whether or not it was a photograph of his penis was not necessary to prove the offence charged. Detective Manson formed the view that the accused was being truthful when he denied it was his penis. He agreed that if a comparison had been undertaken that would have demonstrated that he was being truthful, however he said there was a discussion about the difficulties given the penis in the photograph was erect. He said there was nothing about the hand in the photograph that would assist in identifying it, such as a mole, scar or tattoo.160 169 Detective Manson made inquiries with Softball SA and obtained the accused’s member history: Exhibit P16. P16 shows the associations and clubs of which the accused was a member for the 2023/2024 season. He also obtained a member history for the accused from Northern Area Men’s Softball Association (NAMSA): Exhibit P17. This showed the accused’s involvement in USC Bears. Detective Manson also obtained an umpire report card for the game on 12 January 2024 which was a record of players: Exhibit P18.161 170 Detective Manson accessed the Facebook Help Centre and looked for information regarding Facebook’s retention policy. This policy is accessible to anyone who has access to Facebook: Exhibit P 19. In summary the policy is as follows: • Deleting a chat from the inbox does not delete it from a friend’s inbox. It is not possible to delete an entire chat from a friend’s inbox but a message sent on Facebook can be removed. Deleting a chat permanently removes it. 158 T 342-343. 159 T 347. 160 T 340-341. 161 T 349-351. -- 40 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 39 • A message that has been sent can be deleted by clicking on unsend for everyone or unsend for you. • When messages and calls from another person’s profile are blocked that profile cannot chat or call or receive messages or calls. The person’s profile who blocked another person’s profile will still be visible on Facebook and the blocked profile can still leave comments on posts or profile. • Blocking messages and calls to a Facebook profile does not block them automatically from any Instagram account. • Blocking a profile or Page means that profile or Page cannot see the blocker’s posts or tag the blocker’s profile, invite the blocker’s profile to events or groups or start a conversation or add the blocker as a friend. • The message history of a profile that has been blocked will remain in the inbox. 171 Detective Manson also downloaded information from the Instagram help centre: Exhibit P 20. In summary, that information was as follows: • Conversations in the inbox can be removed by deleting them. Once deleted it will no longer be visible. It will still appear in the inbox of the other people who are part of the conversation. • A message in an Instagram chat can be deleted but it does not delete the message for others in the chat. To do that, it is necessary to unsend the message. • A data download file will not include messages that have been deleted. • When a person is blocked on Instagram their likes and comments are removed from the blocker’s photographs and videos. • When a person is blocked on Instagram messaging threads with that person will remain in the Direct inbox. 172 Detective Manson did not check whether the policies in P19 or P20 were the same on 12 January 2024.162 173 The accused was suspended from any involvement in Softball Association activities on 19 February 2024. The reason for the suspension was the allegations before the court. In 2023 TC undertook umpire training just prior to the SAPSASA tournament.163 174 Detective Manson said he could not recall seeing the messages in P5 on TC’s phone before they were emailed to him. He may have seen one or two and asked her to produce the conversation. He did not think he went through each and every message.164 162 T 353. 163 T 354-355. 164 T 356. -- 41 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 40 Cross-examination 175 Detective Manson confirmed that the initial investigation conducted by Detective Graham was closed in April 2024 after he completed a review of the accused’s mobile phone and did not locate any evidence. On 13 July 2024 the accused contacted the police station; by then CS had given his first statement and the first prescribed interview had been undertaken. The accused only learnt that CS had given a statement during his interview on 28 August 2024.165 176 No data download of Facebook was conducted on the accused’s mobile telephone.166 CS 177 CS was born on 13 March 2005. He was twenty years old when he gave evidence. He met TC through softball and had known her since 2018. They first met at the United Softball Club Bears and Cubs. At that time, CS was a player in the under 16 grade and TC played in the under 14 grade. CS said they were friends and would stay in contact but were not really close friends. He did not see her outside of football. They maintained their friendship over social media, namely Snapchat and Instagram.167 178 CS met the accused in 2018 when CS was round 13 years old. The accused was his coach for a year and then they umpired together. CS became an umpire in 2021 after doing a course at West Beach through SAPSASA and then went to a few clinics. He was paid to umpire. There were eight levels of umpiring and he was a level 2 in the 2023/2024 season.168 The accused was also a level 2.169 179 CS had umpired a game when the accused was playing and had also umpired a game with the accused.170 There were generally two or three umpires at a softball game, but the minimum requirement was one.171 180 CS said that on 13 January 2024 TC had a conversation with him on Snapchat: Exhibit P4. CS said P4 was the entire conversation with TC on 13 January 2024. CS knew more than one person with the accused’s first name and that is why he asked TC ‘like the umpire?’.172 181 CS said that when TC sent him the picture of the exposed penis it had TC’s face in the background. The sticker of the penis had been superimposed on photograph TC had just taken of herself from the neck up with a wall in the 165 T 357-358. 166 T 358. 167 T 266-267. 168 T 267-268. 169 T 269. 170 T 269 171 T 270. 172 T 272. -- 42 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 41 background.173 CS identified P3 as the penis in the sticker that TC sent him.174 CS did not save the photograph because he did not want it on his phone.175 182 A clearer version of the Facebook messenger messages which TC sent to CS were tendered: Exhibit P9. 183 CS knew TC’s mother. He had met her multiple times through softball and she was friends with his parents.176 184 On 13 January 2024, CS was umpiring a game at the Munno Para Soccer Club between 6.30pm and 8.30pm. The accused was playing in that game. He was on the bench.177 CS said that a bench player sits there, supports the team, cheers the team on and if there is not another coach, the bench player will help coach. A bench player will get subbed on and get to play as well. CS could see the accused when he was umpiring. He could not recall if he was subbed on.178 185 The benches were off to the two sides of the diamond and the spectators are adjacent or near to the bench. CS was positioned about five metres from the bench. He said the accused was on his phone for the majority of the game. He did not maintain observations of the accused very often. Between every batter, he would have a bird’s eye glance across the field to make sure there were no hazards.179 186 The batters would wait in the same area as the bench, and there were generally six or seven batters there. Players on the bench are allowed to use their mobile phones and that was pretty normal. Phones are not allowed on the pitch.180 187 CS had a brief conversation with the accused when he was walking to the first base coach’s box during his team’s turn to bat. He joked to the accused saying, ‘You should come on the diamond and help me’.181 The accused joked and laughed and agreed. His team was the Raptors and the coach was MB.182 The umpire chat and umpire allocation document for 12 January 2024 showing the allocation of umpires that day was tendered: Exhibit P 10. CS was the chief umpire that day.183 188 CS said he could understand why TC said she considered him to be an older brother. They had grown up together and she did not have any older siblings. She confided things in him.184 173 T 273-274, 276. 174 T 275. 175 T 276. 176 T 279. 177 T 280. 178 T 280-281. 179 T 282. 180 T 283. 181 T 283. 182 T 284. 183 T 288. 184 T 285. -- 43 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 42 189 He suggested TC have a shower because he thought it could be relaxing and would keep her mind off what was going on.185 He asked her to send a picture of her in the shower so that he knew she was safe. He wanted to know that she was not in a position to harm herself. He did not intend that as a joke and wanted her to send a photograph of something like the shower head. 186 CS said there had been a history of TC self-harming.187 190 On 13 January 2024, CS umpired three games. He saw the accused who seemed no different from his normal self, ‘happy mood, jokey, laughy’. They umpired two games together and talked about umpiring and then just probably general chitchat.188 191 Although CS told TC on 13 January 2024 over Snapchat that he wanted to speak to SWY, the head umpire, about what TC had told him, he did not do so because by that time he had already been contacted by police. He could not recall when he was contacted by police.189 192 CS was friends on Facebook with the accused from around 2019/2020 until 2023. There was an incident at softball when the accused was his coach. He was put on the bench and his mother was yelling at the accused. CS was very embarrassed. After this, the accused ‘unfriended’ him on Facebook.190 His conversations on Facebook with the accused were possibly about umpiring and were formal and nice.191 193 On 8 July 2024 the accused contacted him via Facebook messenger: Exhibit P11. The message exchange is set out below: Accused: Hey man. It was you that was telling me [TC] tried getting you to buy her drugs and alcohol right? She recently asked me and I was like someone warned me about this. CS: Hey, I don’t think it was me, I don’t talk to her, that’s off tho has she asked you to buy her some. Accused: Was you it you that told me she tried with someone when we where at umpire camp? Yeah I ignored her. CS: Honestly I can’t even remember she probarly asked me at one point to get her alcohol. Yeah best to ignore her when did she ask u this Accused: Yeah I remember you telling me she a trouble maker? CS: Yeah she can be, just gets involved in alot of drama and tries to get other people involved. 185 T 285. 186 T 289. 187 T 290. 188 T 286. 189 T 291-292. 190 T 293-294. 191 T 294. -- 44 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 43 Accused: I remember you saying something about her being attacked. CS: Yeah she was saying she got attacked and asked for my help but honestly just ignored her Accused: What other drama have your heard so I know to keep an eye out, I don’t trust her CS: Not much really, other then what I just said, but yeah just keep ur distance why is she even messaging you Accused: I had her added a long time ago she use too ask about umpire advice CS: Oh yeah that’s fair enough Accused: DO you know anyone else she’s asked? CS: Nah haven’t heard that she’s asked anyone else [thumbs up emoji] Accused: She need help she’s clearly not all there CS: Yeah she does Accused: Too easy man enjoy your night CS: Cheers man you too 194 CS said that he would not talk to TC often. The only time they would talk was when she needed his help with something. CS was sure TC had probably asked him at some point to get her alcohol. He thought that was normal teenage behaviour. He could not say when that might have been. When CS wrote that TC got involved in lots of drama and tried to get others involved, he said that was normal teenage girl behaviour and TC always had issues with someone or something. He explained that she had relationship issues with a boyfriend or friend and she would quite often come to him with them.192 195 CS said that there was an occasion about a year before when she had messaged him saying her ex-boyfriend was following her around Port Adelaide and she felt unsafe. CS collected her and took her home. CS said that his message ‘honestly just ignored her’ was a typo and that should have read ‘honestly, just ignore her’.193 196 CS agreed he was suggesting that the accused keep his distance from TC but said there was not really a reason for that. He then said because of his conversation with TC on 13 January 2024 he told the accused to keep his distance so there was ‘no drama between both parties’. CS agreed in P11 that TC needed help and in evidence he said a psychologist would do her some good. That was his honest 192 T 297 193 T 298. -- 45 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 44 opinion at the time based on the amount of drama she would get in and some of her history.194 197 CS said that the conversation in P11 was very late at night and he was sleepy. He was confused about why he was getting a message out of the blue. He was also trying not to disclose the fact that he had already spoken to TC about the situation. He did not want the accused to know for reasons connected to him and TC personally.195 198 CS said that he and the accused both went on a three-day umpiring training camp in Mount Barker, probably in September 2023. They shared a cabin together. They got along well. The camp was about six months after his mother yelled at the accused during a softball game.196 199 TC did not ask him to buy drugs but there was a time she asked him to buy alcohol and he said no. She never talked to CS about drugs.197 Cross-examination 200 CS agreed that if there are two umpires in a game of softball, there are on the field and off the field duties. For example, one umpire may be observing pitches to see if a ball is a strike. Umpires have to make instant judgment calls about whether a runner is safe or out. CS agreed that two umpires are performing two roles at one time when a game is being played, in addition to managing the flow of the game. CS agreed that being an umpire can be demanding, and for a solo umpire it is more demanding. A solo umpire determines if a ball is a strike, watches the runners, and their eyes are scanning the softball diamond while the game is being played.198 201 CS said he was a level two blue shirt umpire as at 12 January 2024. He agreed he could be asked questions and have to provide answers to coaches about his umpiring decisions. As a solo umpire for the game involving the accused’s team, he agreed there was a lot of pressure on him. He was having to make judgment calls, for example, on a foul ball and then shift his attention to runners moving around the diamond. He wore a face mask which was designed to prevent injuries to the face.199 He was wearing one on 12 January 2024.200 202 A diagram of a softball diamond was tendered: D 12. CS marked on D12 where he was standing when he was umpiring at the home base: Exhibit D12A. He agreed that the accused’s team initially occupied the coach’s box by third base and he marked that on D12A. The bench by the third base coach’s box was about five metres diagonally behind him. The spectators would congregate behind the foul 194 T 298-299. 195 T 300. 196 T 301-302. 197 T 302. 198 T 305. 199 T 305. 200 T 306. -- 46 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 45 ball line which CS marked on D12A, together with the bench and the location of the spectators.201 203 CS agreed that on 12 January 2024 there were more than ten spectators but he could not recall if there were more than twenty.202 He said the bench players and spectators at these grounds intermingle with each other. The bench players generally congregated in the area between the coach’s box and the position marked X on D12A.203 204 CS agreed that some of the spectators at the game on 12 January 2024 were wearing replica jerseys of the teams they were supporting. Players have kit bags which are quite large and contain safety equipment, softball bats and helmets. They are left at the players’ bench. CS agreed that around the bench and spectators’ area where he saw the accused, there were other players, spectators and a large number of kit bags. CS was standing side on to the accused’s position on the bench. CS agreed that if a ball was struck and the runner went towards first base that is where his eyes would follow.204 205 CS disagreed with the proposition that his observations of the accused on 12 January 2024 were extremely limited. He said it was part of his duties to keep an eye on the bench to see if anyone was taking the diamond secretly; if there had been a substitution about which he had not been notified. He was also on the alert for potential hazards.205 206 CS said that the game on 12 January 2024 was the only time he had umpired a game solo. He could not remember what the score was. It was a smooth-running game. There were no incidents that he could recall.206 207 CS agreed that he thought of TC as a little sister and their relationship over time became closer. She had confided in him about her partners.207 208 CS agreed he gave a statement to police on 24 June 2024 and 28 October 2024. In the second statement he told police, ‘I do remember her having one boyfriend for a bit who was not very nice and they’d have a lot of arguments’. He collected TC when she had an argument with her boyfriend and he was living with his parents at Blakeview at the time and it was about a half our drive. He then took her to Mawson Lakes.208 201 T 308-309. 202 T 309. 203 D 310. 204 T 312. 205 T 313. 206 T 315. 207 T 316-317. 208 T 319. -- 47 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 46 Re-examination 209 When the accused walked in a direct path to the coach’s box and had a joking conversation with CS about helping him umpire, he was at the first base coach’s box.209 CS marked that on D12A. 210 CS explained that when a team is batting there are six or seven players on the bench. When they are not batting there are only bench players, usually around one to three players. The accused was always on the bench on the third base side. Spectators could come and sit there as well. He could not remember if the accused was sitting or standing for the game.210 211 The score card for 12 January 2024 was tendered: Exhibit P 13. CS’s name appeared under ‘plate umpire’ and ‘first base’ because he was paid for both duties. The Phantoms beat the Raptors 23 to 6 runs. The game was recorded as starting at 6.25pm and finishing at 8pm. The first team to bat was the Phantoms.211 212 The face mask was a visor with bars in a grid pattern which has a gap for the eyes. He would only be wearing the mask when he was squatting down behind the batter.212 Agreed facts 213 The following facts were agreed in Exhibit P21: 1. [TC] was born on 07/01/2008. 2. [The accused] was born on 23/04/1990. 3. A photo alleged to have been received by [TC] on Snapchat on 12/01/24, depicting an exposed penis, originated from the internet. 4. [The accused] has a Facebook profile, which he used in 2023/2024. His Facebook handle is [RTH]. 5. On 19/2/2024, [the accused] was notified in writing by the Chairman of Softball SA that he was suspended from participating in softball activities until an investigation is concluded, as a result of a complaint made against him. 214 Further facts were agreed in Exhibit D22: 1. The first time [TC] made an allegation that [the accused] had told her (through a Snapchat conversation on 12 January 2024) that he wanted to book a hotel room for them to spend the night together was during her Addendum Affidavit signed on 26 September 2025. 2. The first time [TC] made an allegation that [the accused] had told her (through a Snapchat conversation on 12 January 2024) that he wondered how she would feel 209 T 320-321. 210 T 322. 211 T 324-325. 212 T 328. -- 48 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 47 during sexual activity was on 7 October 2025, during examination in chief (Transcript page 60). 3. The first time [TC] made an allegation that [the accused] had told her (through a Snapchat conversation on 12 January 2024) that he wondered how he would feel during sexual activity was on 7 August 2024, during her second prescribed interview (Exhibit P1B, lines 246-248). 4. The first time [TC] mentioned that, during an alleged Snapchat conversation with [the accused] on 12 January 2024, she had sent him photographs of her face or of the pool was on 7 October 2025, during examination in chief (Transcript page 64). Defence case 215 The accused elected not to give evidence. Closing submissions Prosecution 216 Ms Linale argued that some of the Facebook communications in P2 constituted discreditable conduct evidence pursuant to s 34P (2) (a) EA. She said they were admissible for the permissible purpose of providing the relevant context to the charged communications on Snapchat and were also evidence of grooming behaviour by the accused. Ms Linale argued that the messages in which the accused showed an interest in TC - remembering her birthday, telling her he had been past her place of work and asking why she was not at softball - were all communications intending to groom TC such that she would respond in a favourable way to sexualised communications. 217 On the prosecution case, the accused moved the conversation from Facebook to Snapchat in order to send sexualised messages which he knew would delete immediately after being viewed. Although the evidence established that Snapchat messages and photographs could be preserved by screenshotting them, there was less likelihood of detection on Snapchat when compared to Facebook. 218 Ms Linale accepted that TC’s account of the communications over Snapchat ‘developed’ over time but said that this was a natural consequence of being asked to provide further information. In the second prescribed interview, TC was able to recall more information about the content of the communications, including messages in which the accused asked what she was doing, what she was wearing and how he wanted to have sex with her and for her to give him pleasure. She also explained that he had said he wanted to bend her over, pull her hair and make her scream, that it would give him pleasure to have a fresh pussy to fuck and he had sent a written summary of what he wanted to do, including take her to a hotel and fuck her from behind. He told her how he was hoping she would feel. She described how the accused sent her a photograph of himself in the mirror and she sent him photographs of her face and while she was in the pool. -- 49 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 48 219 Ms Linale then addressed the different accounts TC gave about what happened immediately before she blocked the accused on Snapchat. In her first prescribed interview she said she blocked the accused after he sent her the ‘dick- pic’. In her second interview she said she blocked him when the sexualised messages escalated and then, in evidence, she said she blocked him when she realised he had screenshotted the picture of the breasts. Ms Linale contended that the different versions were consistent with the passage of time and her uncertainty and not a lack of credibility. 220 Ms Linale said that TC had been consistent in her account of the content of the messages she could recall, namely that there were two photographs sent to her of a penis, the accused said he was horny and that she told him he had someone who could help him with that. Any unreliability regarding chronology should not lead to a finding that TC’s evidence as to the content was unreliable. 221 Ms Linale referred to TC’s detailed description of the photograph showing a hand gripping a penis over clothing and the fact that she was able to describe the clothing she said the accused was wearing in that image. She gave a plausible explanation as to why only part of the image of the exposed penis could be saved. Ms Linale argued that the accused chose to send a photograph of someone else’s penis that he had downloaded from the internet for the same reasons that TC sent a photograph of someone else’s breasts which she had downloaded from the internet. Ms Linale acknowledged that it was not put to the accused in the record of interview that he had downloaded it from the internet and sent it to her. 222 TC’s evidence was that the photograph of the exposed penis was sent to her at 7.30pm Cairns’ time, which was 8.00pm in Adelaide. Ms Linale accepted that at this time the accused was benching for his softball team but argued that TC could be mistaken as to the exact timing. 223 Ms Linale said that TC gave a plausible explanation for not telling the police in her first interview that she had sent the accused a downloaded image of breasts. She thought she would get in trouble and that is why she deleted the image from her phone. Ms Linale argued that her anger towards the accused – ‘delete that fucking photo now’ – was not inconsistent with her evidence that there was nothing about that photograph which would have identified her as the sender. Her explanation that she thought he might show it to his friends was a plausible basis for the anger. An inference could be drawn that there had been a conversation on Snapchat about not saving the images but the accused had done so. 224 Ms Linale argued that it was unlikely and implausible that TC would have reacted in such a aggressive manner if the photograph she thought the accused had saved was the image of her face with a nose piercing in P2. However, Ms Linale conceded that it was open to infer that she was referring to some other image altogether about which she had not given evidence. If that inference was drawn, no finding could be made regarding the content of that photograph. -- 50 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 49 225 Ms Linale focussed on the accused’s response to TC’s message, ‘you fucking love me’. She said ‘I like you a bit, yes, why?’ was an odd response if their relationship was purely based on brief interactions on the odd occasion at softball. In addition, the messages regarding TC not having to be perfect, that her imperfections made her perfect to the accused and that she did not have to pretend to be anyone else with him were not the sort of things a person in the accused’s position would say to a 16-year-old girl. 226 Ms Linale argued that I should infer from the accused’s response to TC’s assertion that all of the memories of her rape had returned meant there must have been something sexualised about her communications with the accused. This inference was fortified by the accused’s response, ‘I would never do that to you’. 227 Ms Linale said that the accused’s messages in which he said he was there for her when she was ready and he was keen to talk to her were not consistent with someone who had been blackmailed in the manner described by the accused in his record of interview. 228 Ms Linale conceded that TC’s explanation for writing ‘you meant a lot to me’, namely that he had given her advice for five minutes during a softball tournament, stretched credulity. If I rejected that explanation, then there was no evidence to explain why she wrote that. Ms Linale accepted that TC’s message suggesting she wanted to protect the accused (‘I’m doing this for you in case it ever gets out’) was not consistent with her evidence that the accused was messaging her in an offensive and sexually disturbing manner. Ms Linale agreed that this message was more consistent with TC having disclosed or sent things to him that could cause him a problem if made public. 229 Ms Linale accepted that TC’s apology for leaving the accused’s life was inconsistent with the suggestion that a 9-hour period of Snapchat communications constituted being in his life but urged me to consider that she was viewing this from a child’s perspective and no doubt an immature one at that. Ms Linale suggested that forming an attachment in such a short period of time was consistent with the self-reported symptoms of TC’s borderline personality disorder. 230 Ms Linale then addressed the evidence of initial complaint and the elaboration of that complaint to CS. The initial complaint to TC’s father demonstrated consistency of conduct and account. Although her father did not give evidence, TC’s evidence could be relied upon to prove the making of an initial complaint. The elaboration of the complaint to CS included TC sharing with him the sticker of the exposed penis and two Facebook messages between her and the accused. 231 Ms Linale said it was significant that TC could recount accurately in her first prescribed interview the accused’s Snapchat handle. -- 51 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 50 232 Ms Linale urged me to reject the accused’s denials in his record of interview as not reasonably possibly true because he presented in a manner that suggested he was nervous and not telling the truth. For example, he was talking quickly, clicking his pen and gesticulating. Ms Linale suggested that I should compare his presentation in the record of interview with his presentation in the dock but I indicated during submissions that this would be an unfair and improper approach to evaluating the record of interview. Ms Linale said that the accused was trying to distance himself from TC and any contact he had with her when he said he had never gone to her place of work. When he was shown the Facebook messages demonstrating that he had, he was being clever by pretending that it was just a mistake. 233 When the accused was shown the Facebook messages from 12 January 2024 and said ‘oh that doesn’t make me look too good, does it’ he blurted this out, suggesting he realised that it would be obvious he had been downplaying the nature and content of the communications between them. The accused was trying to explain away TC’s anger about him saving a photo by suggesting it may have been the selfie she sent on Facebook. He introduced the possibility of the request by TC for drugs and alcohol as having occurred on Instagram but there was no evidence of any communications between TC and the accused on Instagram. He then said it was possibly during the one-minute phone call. 234 Ms Linale suggested that the accused was protesting too much when he repeated during the interview that there was no evidence of any sexualised communications. She contended that the accused’s detailed memory of his whereabouts on 12 January 2024 should be contrasted with his deficient memory regarding his interaction with TC on that day. 235 Ms Linale accepted that there was no evidence from which I could infer that the accused was made aware of the allegations the subject of the charge when he was first notified about the complaint on 19 February 2024 and suspended from softball, prior to any contact with police. She accepted that he had gone about collecting evidence to exonerate himself once he learnt that the investigation had been reopened. 236 Ms Linale accepted that the accused had given an account to CS of TC asking for drugs and alcohol which was consistent with what he said in the record of interview. 237 In written submissions filed following the recall of TC for further cross- examination, Ms Linale contended that TC was not inherently unreliable or incredible as a result of the way in which the details of the alleged offending had emerged. She argued that there may be a number of reasons why a child might not disclose all the details of the alleged offending in one ‘drop’. That may be the product of the interviewing style or her own discomfort. -- 52 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 51 Defence 238 Mr Roche said the symptoms of TC’s borderline personality disorder as described by her in evidence have led her to misinterpret the accused’s communications with her, attach a meaning to them which they did not deserve, resulting in a disproportionate and excessive response. 239 Mr Roche pointed out internal inconsistencies in TC’s second prescribed interview regarding her association with the accused prior to the alleged offending. Initially she said that she did not really know him well and later said he helped her out a lot with umpiring skills that led her to think a lot of him. In addition to this internal inconsistency, that evidence did not sit comfortably with her account that the only time the accused helped her out with umpiring was for five minutes during the Masters Tournament. She also appeared to have conflated her recollection of the accused’s assistance to her with that of another person, S, who coached and umpired her. 240 Mr Roche said it was possible that TC developed an attachment to the accused as a result of her borderline personality disorder rather than as a result of any meaningful or lasting interactions with him. Her Facebook message, ‘you meant a lot to me’ could not be reconciled with her evidence of the little interaction she had had with the accused prior to 12 January 2024. Mr Roche accepted that one inference from the message ‘you meant a lot to me’ was that TC had not been truthful about the true (or her perception of the true) nature of her relationship with the accused. If so, that was a matter that would significantly undermine her credibility. 241 Mr Roche said that TC’s account was a developing narrative and despite the passage of time, she recalled additional details of the Snapchat messages in her statement of 26 September 2025 or for the first time in evidence that she had not mentioned in her prescribed interviews. The prior inconsistent statements by omission were significant because they related to matters which, it was argued, she ought to have remembered if they had occurred. No explanation, let alone a plausible one, was given for those omissions. Those prior inconsistent statements by omission were: 1. In her two prescribed interviews, TC made no mention of the accused telling her over Snapchat that he wanted to book a hotel room for them to spend the night together. The first time she mentioned that was in a statement sworn on 26 September 2025. 2. Until she gave evidence, TC had never before mentioned that the accused told her in the Snapchat conversation that he wondered how she would feel during sexual activity. 3. In her first prescribed interview, TC did not mention that the accused had told her in the Snapchat conversation that he wondered how she would feel during sexual activity. -- 53 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 52 4. Until she gave evidence, TC had never before mentioned that she had sent the accused photographs of her face or the pool during their Snapchat conversation. She said in her first prescribed interview that she had only sent ‘dry’ snaps of the wall to the accused. 242 There was no re-examination of TC about the reasons, if any, that she omitted to mention the matters set out above at an earlier period of time. 243 In relation to CS, Mr Roche asked me to find that he had a natural bias towards TC, given his admission that he saw her as a little sister and had been protective of her. His knowledge of the allegations through the Snapchat messages with TC on 13 January 2024 have led him retrospectively to place emphasis upon something to which he had in fact paid little attention, namely what the accused was doing during the softball game on 12 January 2024. 244 Mr Roche asked me to view with circumspection CS’s evidence that he was paying attention to what the accused was doing when he was performing solo umpire duties for the first time and was under pressure. CS conceded that he was not looking at the accused very often during the game and he was not in his direct line of sight and other players and spectators were nearby. 245 Mr Roche said that TC’s frustration when she sent the message ‘delete that fucking photo now’ was the result of a lack of contact from the accused between 12.27pm and 9.31pm and her concern that he had saved the Facebook photograph of her face with the nose piercing. TC admitted in her first prescribed interview that she was not thinking straight and was in a bad mental health state on 12 January 2024. 246 Mr Roche said that one explanation for the accused’s message ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’ was that this was something TC had said in the one-minute phone call and not over Snapchat. 247 Mr Roche said that it was telling that there was not a single reference in any of the Facebook messages from 9.31pm to Snapchat communications or being blocked on Snapchat. There was no independent evidence at all of Snapchat communications between the accused and TC on 12 January 2024. There was no objective evidence confirming that the accused was in her blocked contact list on Snapchat. 248 Mr Roche focussed on the absence of any evidence to prove that the accused downloaded the image in P3. Detective Graham seized the accused’s mobile telephone in February 2024 and upon examination nothing of relevance was found. Mr Roche said that TC admitted downloading an image of breasts from the internet and sending it as a red snap. It is a reasonable possibility that she also downloaded the image of the penis but said the accused sent it to her. I should reject her denial of this. -- 54 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 53 249 Mr Roche said that I should reject TC’s evidence that she moved the conversation to Facebook in order to obtain evidence against the accused. There were alternatives available to her to preserve the messages or images she said were exchanged on Snapchat. Given she had disclosed to her father that the accused had been sending her inappropriate messages, she could have used her father’s mobile phone to screenshot those messages and images. Mr Roche said that I should view with circumspection TC’s evidence that she moved the conversation to Facebook in order to obtain or preserve evidence, given her failure to take any of the available steps to secure evidence of the accused’s communications with her and the fact that the only image she stickered could not be identified as coming from the accused. 250 Mr Roche said that a finding should not be made that the accused was grooming TC in the Facebook messages. They were innocuous, relatively banal social media communications. He contended that I should reject TC’s evidence that it was her belief that the accused saved the image of the breasts which led her to write ‘delete that fucking photo now’. Given that image was not of her, could not be identified as coming from her and any preservation of it by the accused would not reveal she sent it to him, her response was disproportionate and excessive. Accordingly, the inference arose that the message was about some other photograph that she had sent the accused. Mr Roche said it was open to infer that the photograph was the one of her face with her nose pierced or some other photograph altogether. Either way, a rejection of her evidence on this topic would be a significant matter in terms of her credibility. 251 Finally, Mr Roche said that the accused was forthcoming and genuine in his record of interview. He was doing his best to recall the events and his lack of recollection regarding the content of any communications with TC was consistent with the passage of time. The fact that the accused said ‘yeah, okay, some of that stuff doesn’t make me look too good does it?’ was an honest response of a person who looked at the Facebook messages and could see that they could be interpreted in a potentially sinister way. A person with a guilty conscience in contrast would have attempted to explain them away. Findings of fact on undisputed or unchallenged evidence 252 I find the facts agreed in P21 and D22 proved. 253 I make the following further findings of fact: 1. The accused was an adult at the time of the alleged offence. 2. TC was a child at the time of the alleged offence. 3. On 12 January 2024, TC was in Cairns staying with her father. 4. On 12 January 2024, between 6.35pm and 8.00pm the accused was one of the players of a game of Softball for the team, Raptors against the team, Phantoms. -- 55 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 54 The game was umpired by CS. The Phantoms beat the Raptors 23 to 6 runs. The Raptors had three players on the bench, including the accused. 5. P 3 is an edited copy of P15. On 10 February 2025, TC provided Detective Manson with a copy of P3. 6. The penis in P3 is not the accused’s penis. This image was available on a number of adult pornography websites when a reverse image search was conducted by Detective Manson, the latest of which was on 16 March 2025. 7. P 18 and P 19 contain information regarding deleting messages and images from Facebook and Instagram and blocking persons, profiles or pages which was current as at the date of the trial. 8. There is no evidence regarding the currency of the information in P14 regarding deleting messages and images from Snapchat and creating stickers. 9. The accused and TC met each other through their respective involvement in Softball. The accused was never TC’s coach. The accused was a player and also an umpire. The accused was a member of the associations, clubs and entities listed in P16 on the dates referred to therein. The accused was a member of USC Bears NAMSA 2021-2023 and then the Raptors Softball Club 2023-2024. 10. By October 2023, TC was a softball umpire. 11. D12 is an accurate depiction of a softball diamond. 12. TC performed a data download of her Facebook account upon Detective Manson’s request on 7 July 2024. No independent examination of TC’s Facebook account was conducted by police. 13. No examination or data extraction was conducted of TC’s mobile telephone. 14. TC was asked by Detective Manson on 8 September 2024 to perform a data download of her Instagram account. No independent examination of TC’s Instagram account was conducted by police. 15. The accused’s mobile telephone was seized by Detective Graham on 20 February 2024 and provided to the Digital Evidence Section for analysis on 14 March 2024. The analysis revealed that there was no evidence of P3 or contact with TC on the accused’s mobile telephone. The analysis revealed that the accused had Facebook and Snapchat on his mobile phone but no communications between the accused and TC were found on either of those platforms. An Instagram account could not be found. 16. The messages between TC and CS in P5 were not the complete series of Snapchat communications between TC and CS on 13 January 2024. 17. The accused was interviewed by police on 28 August 2024. 18. P7 is a copy of documents that the accused provided to police prior to his record of interview. 19. On 3 August 2024 the accused provided to police a copy of Snapchat messages between himself and CS: P8. -- 56 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 55 20. On 19 February 2024 the accused was provisionally suspended from any involvement in Softball association activities in consequence of the alleged offending. Preliminary observations 254 None of the messages from the accused in P2 form any part of the charged offending but they provide an important contextual setting for the evaluation of the evidence of TC. On the prosecution case, the messages in P2 prior to the charged offending contain communications of a discreditable nature. Those communications are characterised by the prosecution as grooming behaviour. The permissible use of this evidence is to put the charged offending in context and, on the prosecution case, to establish that the accused was creating a connection with TC in order to groom her for the subsequent sexualised communications over Snapchat. The evidence cannot be used to reason that the accused was more likely to have committed the offence charged because he has engaged in that grooming behaviour. 255 On the prosecution case, the messages post-dating the charged offending are also communications of a discreditable nature. The accused’s references to enjoying talking to TC, that he ‘liked her a bit’, that she did not have to be perfect to him and it was her imperfections that made her perfect to him, that he would never tell anyone about ‘us’ are communications from which it could be inferred that the accused had been engaging in inappropriate sexualised conversation with TC on Snapchat. However, this evidence cannot be used to reason that the accused was more likely to have committed the offence charged because he has engaged in this discreditable conduct. 256 P2 is also relied upon as supporting TC’s account that she and the accused switched the forum of their communications during a 9-hour period on 12 January 2024 to the platform, Snapchat and that she sent him a photograph of breasts which he then saved. 257 There are evidential limitations upon the use to which I can put the messages in P2. Firstly, no evidence was led by the prosecution that this was a complete and accurate record of all Facebook communications between the accused and TC, or even a complete and accurate record of all Facebook communications between the accused and TC in the date range appearing in P2, namely 1 October 2023 to 12 January 2024. No evidence was led establishing the accuracy of the data download process performed by TC. It was not supervised or overseen by police. Surprisingly, no data download of Facebook was conducted by police from the accused’s mobile telephone. 258 After carefully examining the messages in P2 I infer and find that there have been earlier messages than the first one in chronological order in P2, namely 1 October 2023 at 1.21.35pm. That message is from TC to the accused and states ‘I will be doing umpiring’. -- 57 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 56 259 Between 15 October 2023 and 19 December 2023 there are no messages in P2. The last message on 15 October 2023 was from the accused and said ‘what’s up’ with a smiling emoji. There are no further messages from TC or the accused until 19 December 2023. Whilst TC may have ignored the message on 15 October 2023 the pattern of messaging prior to this suggests that TC responded to the accused’s messages until the communication came to a natural end. Moreover, the message sent on 19 December 2023 at 5.31.34pm from the accused ‘Congratulations’ appears to come out of the blue and the matter about which he was congratulating TC is unclear. TC responded, ‘thank you x’ suggesting she knew what it was. I infer and find that there had been some other communication between the two of them on the subject matter about which the accused was congratulating TC. Whilst I cannot make a firm finding that there are missing Facebook messages between 15 October 2023 and 19 December 2023, that appears to be likely. 260 Further, and significantly, in the messages in P2 which, on the prosecution case, are sent after the Snapchat communications the subject of the charge, there are messages from TC and the accused the content of which is not known. 261 Following the one-minute phone call between the accused and TC, the accused wrote ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’. TC sent a message in response but then unsent that message at 9.59pm. In her evidence, TC said she could not recall what was in the unsent message. 262 The accused unsent a message at 9.38pm which was in response to TC’s message ‘I don’t want to talk about it’. He then wrote 25 seconds later ‘I answered what you asked me to do how did I ghost you’. 263 TC said in her first prescribed interview that the accused asked for her Snapchat so he could send her videos of softball. She said in her second prescribed interview that she asked the accused to send her videos of hitting, throwing and pitching a ball so she could improve her skills. However, there are no messages in P2 from either TC or the accused on this topic on 12 January 2024. 264 As a consequence of these matters, I am satisfied and find that the download, P2, is not a complete record of all Facebook communications between the accused and TC. 265 For this reason, I have approached my evaluation of the messages in P2 with caution. In addition, for reasons I will set out below, TC’s explanations for a number of the messages she sent and received on 12 January 2024 were implausible. 266 However, I am satisfied and find that there was some form of communication between TC and the accused following the message in P2 at 12.27.29pm (a love heart reaction from the accused to TC’s message ‘yeah’). The next message in P2 is at 9.31.16pm. TC wrote ‘I’m fucking done’. I infer and find that something must have happened to trigger TC to send this message. Further, TC then demanded the -- 58 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 57 accused ‘delete that fucking photo now’. I infer and find that at some time on 12 January 2024 TC sent a photograph to the accused which she believed he had then saved. Assessment of witnesses and further findings of fact Detective Manson 267 Detective Manson’s evidence was unchallenged but aspects were explored in cross-examination. I accept his evidence. Whilst I am of the view that there were further lines of inquiry and investigative procedures that could have been pursued, I cannot speculate about what results they may have yielded. CS 268 CS was a thoughtful witness. He did not exhibit any obvious or conscious bias towards or against the accused. However, I consider there were aspects of his evidence that exhibited a subconscious bias towards TC, no doubt because of his awareness of the allegations. 269 I view with circumspection the evidence of CS that the accused was on his phone for the majority of the game on 12 January 2024. On his own admission and understandably, he did not maintain observations of the accused very often. I consider it highly unlikely that CS, performing as a solo umpire for the first time on 12 January 2024, was paying much attention to the accused on the bench other than checking from time to time if there was a substitution about which he had not been notified. Whilst I accept that he may well have seen the accused appearing to use his mobile phone when he looked in that direction, I reject his evidence that the accused was on his mobile phone for the majority of the game. The accused was one of a number of people in that general area and there was no reason for CS to be paying attention to him in particular.213 270 I have considered carefully the Snapchat conversation on 8 July 2024 between the accused and CS: P11. I accept CS’ evidence that TC had asked him to buy her alcohol and she said no. This provides some support for the accused’s account in his record of interview that she had asked him to buy her drugs and alcohol. I also accept his evidence that in July 2024 he genuinely believed that TC needed help and a psychologist would do her good and that in his experience, TC got involved in lots of drama and tried to get others involved. 271 I infer and find that CS told the accused to keep his distance from TC because he was aware of the allegations she had made and thought it was in the accused’s best interests to keep away from TC. I formed the impression that CS was trying to take a neutral stance in relation to the allegations and both parties. 213 The fact that CS said to TC in their Snapchat conversation on 13 January 2024 in P4, ‘he was on his phone heaps’ cannot be used for testimonial purposes or as a prior consistent statement bolstering CS’ credit on this topic. -- 59 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 58 TC 272 TC was a confident witness who appeared relatively mature for her age. She was 17 years old at the time she gave her evidence. Whilst I accept her evidence that she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder I have given this fact little weight in my assessment of her. There was no expert evidence led to establish any connection between the symptoms or manifestations of her borderline personality disorder and her interactions with the accused. She said she was on medication at the time of the alleged offending which stabilised her symptoms. 273 The evidence of TC is crucial to the prosecution case. There is no independent evidence corroborating her account of the fact and content of the Snapchat communications between her and the accused. 274 In order to find the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt I must be satisfied of the reliability and credibility of TC’s account of the content of the Snapchat communications sent to her by the accused. 275 TC first gave an account of the content of those communications to police on 1 June 2024 and then again on 7 August 2024. Prior to that, the only other evidence of her account of the alleged offending appears in P5, when she told CS on 13 January 2024 that the accused sent her a ‘dick-pic’, and sent CS the image in P3. 276 I approach TC’s evidence on the basis that it is highly unlikely, indeed near impossible, (if there were multiple Snapchat communications between her and the accused on 12 January 2024) for her to have an eidetic recollection of the content of any or all of those Snapchat communications absent any contemporaneous record she had made of them. Further, on TC’s evidence the communications spanned a period of 9 hours and were numerous. I note that in her first prescribed interview, and before TC was shown the messages in P2, she said that the sexualised messages from the accused in which he said he was single, was asking her for nude pictures and told her he had feelings for her were on Snapchat and Facebook Messenger. She also said that when she asked CS if he had the accused on Snapchat he said yes. Her memory on both of these aspects, on the evidence led by the prosecution, was clearly faulty. 277 Accordingly, in my evaluation of TC’s evidence I have taken into account the unlikelihood of TC having a precise and accurate recollection of each and every message. In her first prescribed interview she said, unsurprisingly, that she could not remember everything. For example, she asserted that the accused was messaging her on Snapchat saying, ‘the only thing that would make better right now is the look of your body’ but when asked if she remembered what he was saying, she said ‘not really’. 278 That does not mean that her evidence could never be a sufficient platform for a finding that the accused was guilty of the charged offence; for example, if I accepted that the accused had sent her the image in P3 deliberately and that he did so for a prurient purpose intending to make her amenable to sexual activity, that -- 60 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 59 communication alone would be sufficient to find the charge proved. By way of further example, if I accepted TC’s evidence that the accused sent her a message in which he told her he wanted to book a hotel room and have sex with her, even if they were not the precise words he used, and found that he did so for a prurient purpose intending to make her amenable to sexual activity, that communication alone would be sufficient to find the charge proved. 279 However, the absence of any independent evidence of the messages leaves TC’s account of them entirely uncorroborated and difficult, if not impossible, to test. 280 There were a number of features of TC’s evidence which, in my view, undermined the credibility and reliability of her account that the accused sent her any sexualised messages over Snapchat on 12 January 2024. TC’s account of her association with the accused 281 There were material inconsistencies in TC’s account of her association with the accused through their respective involvement in softball. In her first prescribed interview, she said that he helped her with some umpiring tips and when he became a coach, he was trying to give her some advice for softball as well. The clear implication of this evidence was that, on more than one occasion and in two contexts (umpiring and playing softball) he had given her advice. 282 In her second prescribed interview, TC said that she would see the accused at softball and say hello or wave and if he asked how she was, she would tell him and ask him how he was. She then said there was only one time that they actually spoke and this was when she was umpiring at the Master’s competition and he gave her some tips for her own safety and that of the players. She then said that he helped her a lot with umpiring skills and that made her think a lot of him. He went out of his way to help her with umpiring skills. She said that he started to help her during the October Master’s competition and they started to have an acquaintanceship. 283 However, in evidence TC said that she saw the accused rarely and only crossed paths with him if he was umpiring or his stepdaughter was playing. She then said that their only interaction at the Master’s tournament in October 2023 was when he spoke to her for less than five minutes during a break when he gave her advice regarding positioning herself to avoid being hit by a ball. She said she did not have a relationship with the accused before the Snapchat communications; she characterised her association with him as ‘an umpire and a player’. She said in evidence that their ‘relationship’ started when he sent her the Snapchat communications. 284 Not only was TC’s account of her association with the accused inconsistent as between her interviews and her evidence, if her evidence is accepted, it is difficult to reconcile the fleeting and innocuous interaction she had with the accused whilst umpiring in October 2023, with her message to the accused in P2 -- 61 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 60 ‘you meant a lot to me’. Further, when asked what she was apologising for when she wrote ‘I’m sorry’ in P2 she said that she was apologising for the fact that she was trying to leave his life. She said she had been in his life ‘just whilst these messages were going on’. TC’s selective preservation of evidence 285 TC’s evidence demonstrated that she was well-versed in the use of Snapchat and the various mechanisms by which messages and images could be preserved. She said agreed with the accused to set her Snapchat communications to ‘delete immediately’ and that each message or image, once opened, would then automatically delete. She was also aware of the mechanisms by which messages or images could be saved despite the ‘delete immediately’ setting. 286 TC gave evidence that she deliberately messaged the accused on Facebook after she blocked him on Snapchat and deleted everything. She did this so she would have evidence of any confessions made by the accused. However, TC agreed that she could have changed the settings on her Snapchat to delete after 48 hours at any time during her communications with the accused. She could also have saved or screenshot the messages, although the accused would have been notified had she done so. She was aware that she could sticker a photograph and the accused would not receive a notification of this; that is what she did with the image in P3. 287 TC was clear in her evidence that she was not encouraging the communications and was uncomfortable with their content. This was not a situation of a child having no awareness of the inappropriateness of the communications or the wrongfulness of the conduct. TC said she told the accused that she was not comfortable because she was a child and because of the age difference. On her account, TC was prepared immediately to complain to her father about the Snapchat communications and their general content. TC was prepared to ‘sticker’ the image of the penis in P3. Most significantly, TC said that she stickered P3 in case she ever wanted to report the matter to police. 288 Against this background, it is difficult to understand why TC did not preserve a single Snapchat communication or image that would have been readily identifiable as coming from the accused. She had the apparent presence of mind to sticker P3 as evidence should she ever wish to report the matter to police but did not preserve any other communications or images. However, I infer and find that she must have known that P3 on its face could not be proved to have been sent by the accused. 289 When TC switched to the Facebook Messenger platform in order to ensure any confessions could be preserved as evidence, it is noteworthy that she did not make a single mention of the fact or nature of the sexualised communications that had been taking place immediately, and in the hours, beforehand. By this stage, on her account, she had reported the matter to her father. -- 62 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 61 290 Had the Snapchat communications been as described by TC in evidence, I would have expected some reference to them by TC in P2, particularly given TC’s asserted motivation to continue the communications with the accused on Facebook messenger. In my view, the absence of any mention of them tells against the credibility and reliability of TC’s account of the fact and content of those messages. 291 What is clear from the messages in P2 is that TC is furious that the accused appeared to have saved a photograph that she had sent him. There is nothing in the messages in P2 that identifies the subject matter of the photograph. The accused continually denied saving the photograph or indeed ‘anything’. I infer and find that TC sent a photograph to the accused at some time prior to 9.31.16pm on 12 January 2024. I consider it unlikely that the photograph to which TC referred was the photograph of her face with a nose piercing that appears in P2 on 10 January 2024 at 8.18.42pm. TC rejected this suggestion when it was put to her. 292 In her first prescribed interview, prior to downloading the messages in P2, TC made no mention of downloading an image of breasts from the internet and sending it to the accused. Instead, she told the interviewer that she was sending the accused ‘dry snaps’ in response to his requests to send him photographs of her breasts. If TC had sent a downloaded image of breasts to the accused, I would have expected her to recall that when being interviewed. The fact that she did not mention it leaves open two possibilities – she did not download and send this image or she did so but did not want to disclose this to police. 293 By the time TC participated in the second prescribed interview, the police were in possession of P2. TC said she had read the messages in P2 before being interviewed. I infer and find that she had read the message ‘delete that fucking photo now’. Despite being pressed on the topic in the second prescribed interview, TC insisted that the photograph she sent to the accused was of a pair of breasts that she had downloaded it from the internet. She also said that the accused kept replaying it but she did not know if he was ‘stickering it or saving it, screenshotting it or anything, cos it didn’t actually show up on my end’. 294 Significantly, in her examination in chief, TC said that if the delete after viewing setting was used a photograph could not be viewed more than once. When it was put to her that she had said this in examination in chief, she disagreed. It was not until she was taken to the transcript that she accepted she did in fact say this. It was then put to her that in her second prescribed interview she said the accused kept replaying the photograph of the breasts and she denied saying this. It was not until she was played the relevant part of P1 that she agreed she had said this. She then refused to accept that, having said she and the accused used a delete after viewing setting, that photograph could not be replayed once viewed as it would have been deleted. -- 63 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 62 295 TC said in evidence that she received a notification that the accused had taken a screenshot of the image of breasts she had sent him. However, she said any such screenshot would not have included her name or Snapchat handle. 296 There is no independent evidence confirming TC’s account of downloading the image from the internet. The image has never been produced. There was no evidence of it on the accused’s mobile telephone. TC said she deleted it from her camera roll. Her mobile telephone was not analysed by police. 297 TC’s evidence on this topic was inconsistent and her refusal to accept what she had said in evidence or in an interview did her no credit. Her stated concern regarding the image which was not of her and could not be traced to her was implausible. If it was that image, her reaction ‘delete that fucking photo now’ was excessive and disproportionate. 298 I have significant reservations regarding TC’s evidence that she sent the accused a downloaded image of breasts from the internet which he then screenshotted and that it was this image that was the subject of her message ‘delete that fucking photo now’. I reject her evidence on this topic. 299 Given the state of the evidence and my findings, I cannot make any finding about the content of the photograph TC sent to the accused or the medium through which it was sent or the context in which she sent it. 300 The tone and content of the messages from TC that follow ‘delete that fucking photo now’ are aggressive and rude. For example, ‘you really want to know what is going on cunt’. The accused’s messages, on the other hand, suggest he is confused and attempting to placate TC. For example, ‘because I don’t understand what has happened I didn’t everything you asked and I didn’t break your trust’. 301 The accused’s message ‘I answered what you asked me to do how did I ghost you’ suggests that TC had, in some other communication, told the accused that he had ghosted her. According to the Collins dictionary ‘ghosting’ means ‘ending a romantic relationship by not responding to attempts to communicate by other person.’214 302 In his record of interview, the accused said that TC told him she had been sexually assaulted by her boyfriend and was using drugs and alcohol to cope. She asked him to buy her drugs and alcohol. When he told her he was a mandatory reporter and would need to tell her mother, she threatened to tell his wife and daughter that he had sent inappropriate images to her. The accused said he then told her he was done and deleted the messages. If the accused’s account is reasonably possibly true, and he cut off all communication, TC may well have accused him of ghosting her. 214 Collins English Dictionary (14th ed, 2023) ‘ghosting’. -- 64 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 63 303 TC’s anger appeared to subside following the one-minute telephone call at 9.49.26pm. When the accused thanked her for answering his phone call and listening, she said ‘your welcome’, followed by ‘I’m sorry that I’m not perfect’. The accused did not respond to that message immediately and after almost three minutes elapsed, TC wrote ‘exactly got nothing to fucking say’. The implication in this message is that TC was angered by the accused’s slowness to respond to her admission that she was not perfect. In evidence she said she wrote that because she wanted some assurance that she was still good enough. I found this aspect of her evidence curious, given her account that the sexualised communications were uninvited and unwelcome and she had told him so. 304 The accused then sent messages of a placatory nature ‘you don’t have to be prefect to me it’s your imperfections that make your prefect to me’ and ‘you like you for you, you don’t have to pretend to be anyone with me just be yourself’. 305 Significantly, when the accused wrote ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’ TC sent a message which she then unsent. In evidence, she said she could not recall what she wrote. Moreover, in both of her prescribed interviews she said she did not know what the accused meant because she did not have a dream about the accused. However, in evidence when asked what the accused said which prompted her to write ‘I’ve recently been raped. It brang back all the memories of what he did to me’ she initially said, ‘the question with ‘Did anything else happen in your dream about us?’. 306 Having watched TC carefully when she was giving evidence, I formed the view this was a spontaneous and unguarded answer and was truthful. Implicit in the answer is that TC knew what it was she had dreamt about. Without any objection from defence counsel, the prosecutor asked the question again ‘to make sure that you understood the question’ and elicited a different answer, and one more favourable to the prosecution case, namely ‘The Snapchat messages so with what he was going to do to me in the hotel room’. 307 However, TC subsequently said that her message ‘You want to know what is going on?’ and the accused’s response ‘yes’ was connected to her disclosure that she had been raped. 308 I infer and find that at some point, possibly during the one-minute Messenger conversation, TC told the accused that she had a dream about the two of them and disclosed details of that dream. I infer and find that it was her dream which triggered the memories of the alleged rape by her boyfriend. I consider it likely that TC was being untruthful in her prescribed interviews when she denied having a dream about the accused rather than simply having no memory of it. TC’s desire to maintain contact with accused to ‘leave everything behind us’ 309 TC’s account of moving to Facebook Messenger to obtain evidence against the accused if he were to ‘confess anything’ is not borne out by the messages in P2. TC does not direct the conversation towards what has, on her account, been -- 65 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 64 hours of ‘constant’ sexualised Snapchat communications. She makes no mention at all of anything the accused had done or said, other than accusing him of saving an unidentified photograph. In any event, on her account she already had evidence because she had stickered the photograph of the penis without him knowing, in case she ever wanted to report the matter to police. 310 TC said in evidence she was scared she would get in trouble with the police. She also said that when she messaged the accused to tell him to forget who she was and they needed to go their separate ways it was hurting her to say that because she did not want to seem like the person who was going to walk away. She did not want the accused to think less of her or that she was the type of person who would give up on someone. 311 Further, after calling the accused a ‘fucking liar’ and telling him that she was going to the police she then tried to call him but he did not answer. Curiously, her explanation for the call was that having found out that the accused was in a relationship with N, she and the accused could go their separate ways and leave what happened behind them. This explanation and behaviour are consistent with TC having a concern regarding her own conduct towards the accused and ensuring that the accused did not tell anyone about it. She said in evidence that she was not going to go to the police if she had been able to speak to accused and they agreed to leave it all behind them, that is, not discuss what happened between them on Snapchat with anyone else. 312 In addition, the initial reason for contacting CS and asking if he had the accused on Snapchat was because she wanted to use CS as a conduit to talk to the accused and try to clear the air between them and leave it behind them. She said if CS had the accused on Snapchat, she would have asked CS to create a group chat to see if she could resolve the issue and leave everything behind them. However, once she realised she could not communicate with the accused through CS or at all, she then told CS she was going to take him to the police station. 313 I am satisfied that TC’s desire to communicate with the accused to resolve the situation is behaviour consistent with her having said things to the accused (and sent him a photograph) which she subsequently regretted and was concerned to ensure the accused did not disclose to anyone. It is not consistent with her account of unwelcome sexualised communications from the accused which she had rebuffed or deflected. 314 By 12 January 2024, TC was no stranger to dealing with the police. She agreed that on 13 July 2023, she reported to police that she had been raped by her ex-partner on 22 June 2023. In April 2021, police spoke to her about an allegation made against her by a former girlfriend. 315 I consider it a reasonable possibility that TC downloaded the image in P3 from the internet and stickered it for the purpose of alleging it came from the accused if she was not able to secure his agreement to leave everything behind -- 66 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 65 them. The review of the accused’s mobile telephone did not yield any evidence to suggest that he had downloaded the image in P3. Detective Manson did not examine the internet search history on TC’s mobile telephone to determine whether the image had been downloaded by her. Initial complaint and subsequent elaboration 316 This evidence was admitted pursuant to s 34M EA. Although section 34M (4) does not apply in a trial by Judge alone, I direct myself that the limited purposes for which that evidence may be used is to demonstrate consistency of conduct of TC such that it buttresses her credibility because of the circumstances in which she made the complaint, its content and any consistency between the complaint and her evidence about the relevant events. 317 The complaint to CS can also be used to explain how the allegations came to light. It is not entirely clear how the allegations came to light but it would seem to have been the result of the complaint to CS. 318 TC’s father did not give evidence. As a result, the only account of the initial complaint came from TC. In her first prescribed interview, when asked who first person to whom she disclosed the alleged offending, TC said it was CS. She specifically mentioned her father during the interview, as she said she was in Cairns with him when the offending allegedly took place. However, she made no mention of making any complaint to her father on 12 January 2024. 319 In contrast, in her second prescribed interview she said she told her father that the accused was someone close to her his age and was sending her inappropriate photographs and messages and saying that he had feelings for her. Her father told her that she did not need to deal with that, she was too young and she should block him and explain to him what’s wrong. In evidence, TC said she did not have an independent recollection of the conversation with her father. 320 I have reservations regarding the reliability of the evidence of TC regarding the complaint to her father. She was specifically asked in her first prescribed interview to identify the first person to whom she disclosed the offending and she nominated CS. I find it difficult to accept that she had forgotten having a conversation with her father after she blocked the accused on Snapchat. I suspect that if there was any such conversation with her father it may have been after her complaint to CS and while she was still in Cairns. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the initial complaint was in fact made to her father. I have disregarded the evidence of that conversation as I am not satisfied when or if it occurred and therefore it is not admissible as an initial complaint or an elaboration. 321 As a result, the complaint to CS is not an elaboration but an initial complaint. I am satisfied that TC complained to a person to whom, and at a time, it was reasonable for her to complain. He was a friend and confidante of hers and someone who also knew the accused. However, her initial reason for contacting CS was not to make a complaint per se but to use CS as a conduit for contacting -- 67 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 66 the accused. Further, when TC realised that CS could not assist her, it was then she decided to make the complaint. 322 TC omitted to mention a number of key aspects of the alleged offending. She did not tell CS that: • The accused had asked for pictures of her body; or • That the accused had told her he wanted to have sex with her; or • The accused had wanted to book a hotel room. 323 What TC did tell CS that the accused was a ‘pedo’ and he sent her a ‘dick pic’. 324 The complaint to CS showed some consistency with her evidence but the inconsistencies by omission on balance undermine her credibility and reliability. Prior inconsistent statements 325 The following prior inconsistent statements were proved: 1. In the first prescribed interview, TC said she was lying in bed on TikTok when the accused sent her a ‘dick-pic’ and then she blocked him. In her second prescribed interview, she said she was sitting on the couch next to her father when she opened the phone and saw the photograph of the penis. In her statement to police on 26 September 2025 she said the photograph of the penis came through when she was in the shower. 2. In her first prescribed interview, TC said the accused helped her with umpiring tips and when he became a coach tried to give her advice about softball. In her second prescribed interview, TC said that the accused helped her a lot with umpiring skills and went out of his way to help her and that made her think a lot of him. However, in evidence TC said that she saw the accused rarely and only crossed paths with him if he was umpiring or his stepdaughter was playing. She then said that their only interaction was at the Master’s tournament in October 2023 was when he spoke to her for less than five minutes during a break when he gave her advice regarding positioning herself to avoid being hit by a ball. 3. In her first prescribed interview, TC said the first person to whom she complained was CS. In her second prescribed interview, she said it was her father. 4. In her first prescribed interview, TC said she only sent the accused dry snaps and did not mention that she had sent him an image of breasts downloaded from the internet. In her second prescribed interview, she said she sent the accused the downloaded image of the breasts and the accused kept replaying the photograph of the breasts that she had sent him but she did not know if he was saving it, stickering it or screenshotting it. In evidence, she said she received a notification that he had screenshotted it. 326 The following prior inconsistent statements by omission were proved: -- 68 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 67 1. TC did not mention in either of her two prescribed interviews that the accused told her during the Snapchat conversation that he wanted to book a hotel room for them to spend the night together. 2. TC did not mention in either of her prescribed interviews the fact that she was sending pictures of the pool at her father’s house or her face to the accused on 12 January 2024. The first time she mentioned that was in her examination in chief. 3. TC did not mention in her first prescribed interview that the accused had told her in the Snapchat conversation that he wondered how he would feel during sexual activity. She said this for the first time in her second prescribed interview. 4. TC did not mention in either of her prescribed interviews that the accused told her in the Snapchat conversation that he wondered how he would feel during the sexual activity. She said this for the first time in examination in chief. 327 No explanations were given for the prior inconsistent statements. She was not asked in re-examination for an explanation of the omissions or inconsistencies. 328 The cumulative effect of the matters I have set out above leave me with a reasonable doubt regarding the credibility and reliability of TC’s evidence that the accused engaged in any sexualised communications with her on 12 January 2024. Whilst the messages in P2 support a conclusion that there were other communications between the accused and TC in the period between 12:27:28pm and 9:31:16pm, my finding that P2 is not a complete record of all the Facebook communications, means I cannot be satisfied that those communications took place over Snapchat. The messages in P2 do not corroborate TC’s account of the impugned communications and do not contain any relevant admissions by the accused. 329 Overall, the messages in P2 paint a picture of TC as troubled and erratic. The tone and content of her messages alternate between aggressive, antagonistic, abusive and rude on the one hand and apologetic and conciliatory on the other. Whilst some of the accused’s responses are, at first blush, imprudent and verge on the inappropriate (‘you don’t have to be prefect to me its your imperfections that make you prefect to me’; ‘I would never do that to you ever’; ‘And I would never tell anyone about us, so don’t stress about people finding out’) they are not themselves sexualised communications and do not support an inference that there had been earlier sexualised communications by the accused. 330 In the absence of any of the alleged Snapchat communications, it is only possible to speculate about the meaning of many of the messages in P2 and the extent to which they relate to any prior communications in that 9-hour period on 12 January 2024. The messages in P2 are an insufficient evidentiary basis for the drawing of reasonable inferences about the nature and extent of any other communications between the accused and TC. The infirmities in TC’s evidence leave me with a sense of disquiet and doubt and I simply cannot accept her evidence regarding the impugned communications beyond a reasonable doubt. -- 69 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 68 Record of interview 331 In addition to viewing the record of interview in court, I have carefully reviewed it in the course of preparing these reasons. 332 The accused’s interview is not evidence on oath and has not been subjected to cross-examination. By the time of the interview, he was aware of the allegations that he had been communicating with TC on Snapchat and had sent her the image in P3. However, he had not been shown the Facebook messages in P2 and there is no evidence that he was given a detailed or specific account of what it was he was alleged to have said in the impugned communications. Taking these matters into account, based on the interview alone, there was nothing that caused me to doubt the accused’s denial of having committed the offence then alleged against him. 333 I formed a favourable impression of the accused in his record of interview. 334 Whilst the accused was assertive with police and at times quite forthright and quizzical, that conduct was consistent, in my view, with a person who simply could not believe the allegations being made against him. He had gathered evidence to give to the police in an effort to exonerate himself. 335 He was interviewed 9 months after the events in question. It was apparent that the passage of time had affected his recollection of events and some of the details. Whilst I accept the accused’s account that he suffered from idiopathic intercranial hypertension and which he said affected his memory, in the absence of expert evidence regarding this condition and its effect on memory, I place little weight on this matter in my evaluation of the accused’s asserted patchy memory. 336 The accused said he did not think that he and TC exchanged pictures on Facebook and referred to the fact that the police had seized his phone. In my view, it is not surprising that, on 28 August 2024, the accused could not remember the photo exchange on Facebook on 12 January 2024 or indeed anything much of their exchanges until his memory was prompted by P2. 337 In P2, it is obvious that the accused had, in the space of two days, forgotten that TC told him she was in Cairns. 338 Given the passage of time, I am not prepared to reject as not reasonably possibly true, the accused’s stated ‘patchy’ recollection and his inability to recall the matters to which some of the communications related. The accused’s phone was seized on 20 February 2024, one day after he was suspended by Softball SA from participating in softball activities. The initial investigation was closed in April 2024. The full allegations were not put to him until almost 8 months later. It was obvious from the record of interview and the evidence at trial that the accused communicated with other people on Facebook and Snapchat. I find it entirely plausible that the accused could only remember ‘bits and pieces’ of his online interactions with TC. -- 70 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 69 339 In light of my findings that P2 is not a complete record of all Facebook communications between the accused and TC, the accused’s assertions that TC had contacted him on Facebook asking him to buy her drugs and alcohol so she could cope with the sexual assault by her boyfriend have not been disproved by the prosecution. Similarly, the prosecution has not proved that the accused’s assertions that TC also contacted him via Instagram which he then deleted are not reasonably possibly true. The evidence of CS provided some limited support for the accused’s account, as TC had asked him to buy her alcohol before. 340 I found the accused’s responses to the allegations compelling. In particular, he fervently denied that the penis in P3 was his penis. He offered immediately to show the police his penis so he could prove it was not his. He had made the same offer at a much earlier time to the first investigating officer, Detective Graham. 341 At the time of the interview, Detective Manson suspected that the penis in P3 was not that of the accused. He conceded that the accused was being truthful in his interview on this aspect of the matter. It has been established beyond doubt that it is not the accused’s penis in P3. Whilst this does not prove that the accused did not send the image to TC, as I have noted, there is no evidence corroborating TC’s account that he did so. 342 Further, on TC’s account P3 was sent around the time the accused was involved in the Phantoms versus Raptors Softball game. He was on the bench sitting amongst other players and spectators. There is an inherent implausibility in the suggestion that at this time he was sending her a downloaded image of a penis or other inappropriate messages. The accused’s statement in his record of interview on this aspect rings true: So what am I doing on a softball diamond sitting there taking photos of my, of my, my junk or sending inappropriate things? 343 Contrary to the prosecution submissions, I did not detect a hint of nervousness or evasiveness in the accused’s presentation throughout the record of interview. When the allegations were put to him, he dismissed them out of hand. He did not behave at any time as if he had any genuine concern that the allegations would be taken seriously or proceed as far as they did. 344 At times the accused appeared frustrated, agitated, dumbfounded or bemused. When he said, ‘obviously more happened than I thought it did’ and ‘yeah, okay, some of that stuff doesn’t make me look too good’, I consider that was a frank response to being confronted with messages which he could see might be interpreted as inappropriate. He did not pivot and try to come up with an explanation or justification for the messages. -- 71 of 72 -- [2025] SADC 139 70 Conclusion 345 It is my task to determine whether the prosecution has proven the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the whole of the evidence. The whole of the evidence includes the accused’s record of interview. 346 The findings I have made regarding the evidence of TC and the absence of any objective evidence corroborating her account that she and the accused exchanged Snapchat messages on 12 January 2024 between 12:27:28pm and 9:31:16pm, have left me in a position where I have a reasonable doubt regarding the credibility and reliability of material aspects of her evidence. The compelling nature of the accused’s denials have fortified that reasonable doubt. 347 It follows that I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence charged. Verdict 348 I find the accused not guilty. -- 72 of 72 --