[2025] SADC 146

Prosecution: R Counsel: MS G GROSSET - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: F, A Counsel: MR M NORMAN KC - Solicitor: CALDICOTT AND ISAACS Hearing Date/s: 28/10/2025 to 31/10/2025, 03/11/2025 to 05/11/2025, 05/12/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-24-011414 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 F, A [2025] SADC 146 Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Fuller 12 December 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD Accused charged with sexual abuse of a child – accused was in relationship with complainant’s mother and living with complainant and siblings between 2005-2010 – complainant’s mother had fled violent and abusive ex-husband - sexual touching by accused alleged to have started in 2006 when he would spoon complainant on couch and touch her breasts, bottom and vagina – when complainant sleeping on mattress in lounge room one night accused got on top of her and ground his penis against her – accused later had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with complainant in her bedroom just before 12th birthday – sexual intercourse then occurred regularly in family home including on couch and complainant masturbated accused whilst in bed with accused and her mother – when accused purchased a unit in Camden Park he took complainant there for sexual intercourse after every soccer game he played on a Sunday until they moved into the unit – when accused got keys to the unit after purchase he took complainant there and had sex with her - after complainant and mother moved into Camden Park unit complainant would catch bus to city and accused would take her home to Camden Park when he finished work at 4.30pm, have sex with her and then drive her back into the city to pick up her mother from work at 6pm– one occasion of anal intercourse and instances of bondage involving accused tying up complainant with his work ties - accused and complainant’s mother purchased a house in Sheidow Park in 2008 but no sexual intercourse took place there - last occasion of sexual activity occurred when accused travelled in work vehicle with complainant from Sheidow Park to Moana and tried to have sex with her in the car – she told accused she could not do it any more – sexual relationship ended but complainant continued to live with accused until accused ended relationship with her mother in 2010. Uncharged sexual offending at accused’s grandparents’ house in Queensland. Complainant made report to police in 2020 that accused had raped her anally, orally and vaginally from the age of 11 to 14. Prosecution also led evidence of - initial complaint to complainant’s close friend in 2006 – she told her friend that she was worried that she might be pregnant and she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend - observations of brother and sister that accused would spoon or cuddle complainant on couch - complainant asked her mother for morning after pill when concerned she might be pregnant to accused - two pretext calls to accused in June and July 2023, no admissions but prosecution relied upon what was said to be admissions to taking the complainant to Camden Park after soccer games and the complainant being the first person he took to his unit. -- 1 of 168 -- Accused gave evidence denying any sexual activity with the complainant and called three character witnesses. Two character witnesses testified that complainant at no more than 3 soccer games. Held: Complainant’s evidence replete with infirmities, deficiencies, internal and external inconsistencies, and implausibility and contradicted by other reliable and credible evidence - credibility and reliability significantly undermined – evidence not capable of proving charge beyond reasonable doubt – accused’s account coherent, cogent and compelling and supported by evidence of character witnesses and prosecution witnesses on material matters - positive finding made that accused did not commit offence charged or engage in any inappropriate behaviour with complainant. Verdict: Not guilty Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50, s 50 (13); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34CB, s 34M, s 34P, s 34R, s 53 referred to. R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; De Sa v The Queen [2021] SASCFC 22; 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; Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR; R v Cassebohm (2011) 109 SASR 465; R v Maiolo (no 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v W, PK [2016] SASCFC 5; R v R, PA [2019] SASCFC 19; Heng v The King [2025] SASCA 57; R v M, AS (2013) 118 SASR 160; R v H, S (2004) 90 SASR 300; Park (A Pseudonym) v The Queen (2022) 142 SASR 132, applied. -- 2 of 168 -- R v F, A [2025] SADC 146 Criminal The charge 1 The accused was charged on Information with the following offence: Sexual Abuse of a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935). Particulars [AF] between the 30th day of September 2005 and the 1st day of March 2009, at Parkside, Camden Park and other places, being in a position of authority in relation to [SS] by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely: (a) Laying on top of her and grinding against her body on at least one occasion; (b) Touching her breasts on more than one occasion; (c) Kissing her on the mouth on more than one occasion; (d) Touching her bottom on more than one occasion; (e) Causing her to masturbate him on more than one occasion; (f) Massaging her naked body on more than one occasion; (g) Sucking and biting her nipples on more than one occasion; (h) Causing her to perform an act of fellatio upon him on more than one occasion; (i) Performing an act of cunnilingus upon her on more than one occasion; (j) Inserting a finger into her vagina on more than one occasion; and (k) Inserting his penis into her vagina on more than one occasion; and (l) Inserting his penis into her anus on one occasion.1 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. 1 Particular (l) did not form part of the Information upon which the accused was arraigned at the start of the trial. Following the complainant’s evidence, the prosecution applied to amend the Information to add particular (1). The application was not opposed. I granted the application, being satisfied that the amendment caused no injustice to the accused and the Information was defective insofar as the complainant gave clear evidence of an occasion of anal intercourse which had not formed part of the particulars of the charge. -- 3 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 2 The prosecution case as opened on 3 The accused was the boyfriend of the complainant’s mother from around 2005. The complainant, SS, was born on 12 April 1994. The prosecution case was that the accused sexually abused SS for just over a three-year period when she was 11 years old to 14 years old. 4 The accused was born on 4 March 1982. 5 The offending was alleged to have occurred between 30 September 2005 and 1 March 2009 across multiple areas in the Adelaide region. The primary addresses were Blyth Street, Parkside, Clifton Street, Camden Park and Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park. On the prosecution case, the sexual abuse occurred at the Parkside and Camden Park addresses. Uncharged sexual acts also occurred in Queensland. 6 SS’s mother is VL and her father is NS. SS had an older sister, CAS, and an older brother CS. LL is her grandfather, on her mother’s side. SS’s parents separated before VL moved into a house in Blyth Street in Parkside in May 2005. VL started dating the accused around October 2005. The accused was 23 years old. 7 Within a couple of months of dating VL, the accused started staying over regularly at the Blyth Street address. Living in that house were SS and CAS, who shared a bedroom, CS had his own room and the accused and VL slept in VL’s bedroom. 8 The sexual abuse commenced when the accused started spooning SS on the couch. This mostly happened when they were alone, but there were some occasions when her brother and sister were in the room. On some of the occasions of spooning, the accused would touch her breasts underneath her clothing. 9 There was a time when SS was sleeping on a mattress in the lounge room. The accused came in, got under the covers and started kissing her on her mouth and neck. Wearing only his underwear, he got on top of SS and started grinding on top of her. 10 A week or so later, before her 12th birthday in April 2006, the accused went into SS’s bedroom and had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with her for the first time. He told her that if she told anyone he would deny it happened. 11 Following the first occasion of sexual intercourse, it would occur on a weekly basis. It would often start with the accused kissing her, touching her breasts and bottom, having her masturbate his penis and then they would have penile-vaginal intercourse. This would often happen in the bedroom or lounge room. 12 There was one occasion when the accused was about to have sex with SS in her bed under the covers when her sister, CAS, came into the bedroom. The accused got off SS and they pretended he was helping her to read a book. CAS could recall an occasion when she went into the bedroom and saw the accused and SS in her bed together reading a book. -- 4 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 3 13 SS was in Unley Primary School in 2006. Her best friend was MUJ. SS told MUJ that she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend. Following this disclosure, there was an occasion when MUJ was at the Blyth Street house and the accused took SS into the laundry and tried to have sex with her. 14 In February 2007, the accused left a Valentine’s Day card on SS’s bed. 15 The accused and SS had sex so often she felt as if they were in a relationship. It made her feel special. Their sexual relationship included fellatio, cunnilingus, digital penetration, massaging her naked body and sucking and biting her nipples. 16 In the early stages of their sexual relationship, the accused would remove his penis from her vagina and ejaculate on her body. He did not wear a condom. 17 The mutual oral sex first occurred at the Camden Park home which was purchased by the accused in August 2006. On the day the accused got the keys to the house, he took SS there and they had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse on the main bedroom floor which was carpeted. The accused did not move into the address immediately and there was a period of time when he would take SS there and they would have sex and then return to the Blyth Street address. Eventually the accused, SS and VL moved into the Camden Park home in 2007. 18 SS would often watch the accused play soccer on Sundays and after the games they would go to Camden Park and have sexual intercourse there. When the accused was close to orgasm, he would put on a condom and ejaculate inside her. He would then put the condom in the red bin outside and they would return to the Blyth Street home. 19 There were two bedrooms at the Camden Park home. SS had her own bedroom. CAS did not live there at any time. After they all moved in, the accused and SS continued to have sexual intercourse; it was usually when her mother was at work. The accused stopped using condoms. There was an occasion in 2008 when the accused ejaculated inside her. SS asked her mother for the morning-after pill and together they went to the Kurralta Park shopping centre to get it. SS was around 13 years old at the time. SS told her mother she was having sex with someone at school. 20 While living in Camden Park, SS, the accused and VL travelled to Queensland together. They stayed at the accused’s grandparents’ house and it was there that they had penile-vaginal intercourse. This evidence of uncharged sexual offending was relevant for propensity purposes. 21 SS moved in with her father for a period of about six months. At that time, CAS and CS were living with their father too. During that period, she had no contact with the accused. She returned home and on the first day back, she and the accused had penile-vaginal intercourse on the couch in the living room of the Camden Park house. Thereafter, the sexual intercourse and other sexual acts continued on a regular basis. -- 5 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 4 22 In November 2008, the accused and VL bought a house together at Sheidow Park. They and SS moved in there. SS could not recall any sexual activity with the accused at that address. There was less time for them to be alone together. 23 The last sexual act that took place was in January 2009. The accused worked at the Magistrates Court and would, on occasion, travel for work outside of Adelaide using a government car. There was an occasion one night when the accused took SS to the beach in a white government car. He parked it and they began kissing in the back seat. The accused was on top of SS. SS was worried someone might see and she told the accused that she could not do it anymore. SS was 14 years old. 24 SS reported the allegations to police in 2020 and then participated in a pretext call arranged by police on 23 June 2023 and another on 5 July 2023. Although no admissions were made, the accused’s responses confirmed the opportunity for some of the sexual activity to have occurred. Elements of the Offence 25 To prove the charge of Sexual Abuse of a Child the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: 1. The accused knowingly maintained a relationship with the complainant. This element requires more than proof alone of the commission of two or more unlawful sexual acts. 2. Whilst that relationship was in existence, the accused intentionally committed two or more unlawful sexual acts with, or toward, the complainant. 3. At the time the accused committed two or more unlawful sexual acts, he was an adult. 4. At the time the accused committed two or more unlawful sexual acts, the complainant was a child. 26 Child is defined in s 50 CLCA to include a person who is under 18 years of age if, during the period of the relationship that is the subject of the alleged unlawful sexual relationship, the adult in the relationship is in a position of authority in relation to the person who is under 18 years of age. S 50 (13) provides, inter alia, that a person is in a position of authority if the person is a parent, step-parent, guardian or foster parent of the child or the de facto partner or domestic partner of a parent, step-parent, guardian or foster parent of the child. 27 An unlawful sexual act is any act that constitutes or would constitute, (if particulars of the time and place at which the act took place were sufficiently particularised) a sexual offence. 28 In this case, the unlawful sexual acts alleged are as follows: -- 6 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 5 Indecent assault 29 Particulars (a) – (g) allege the offence of indecent assault. An indecent assault is an assault accompanied by, or committed in, circumstances of indecency. The prosecution must prove an assault. An assault is the intentional and unlawful application of force to another. The prosecution must prove the assault was accompanied by, or committed in, circumstances of indecency. There must be a sexual connotation. Whether an assault is indecent is for me to determine by reference to prevailing community standards of what is considered indecent. If I am satisfied that SS was under 14 years of age at the time, the offence will be aggravated. Unlawful sexual intercourse 30 The conduct alleged in particulars (h) – (l) constitutes the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse. To prove the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse by a person in a position of authority with a child under the age of 18 the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: • The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant. • The complainant was under the age of 18. 31 Sexual intercourse is defined as including the penetration of a person’s vagina, labia majora or anus by any part of the body of another person, fellatio or cunnilingus. Issue in dispute 32 The central issue in dispute was whether the alleged offending as described by the complainant in fact occurred. There was no dispute that the accused was in a position of authority vis-à-vis the complainant and knowingly maintained a relationship with her and that, during the charged period, the accused was an adult, and the complainant was a child. General directions 33 The accused elected for trial by Judge sitting without a jury pursuant to the provisions of s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). 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. 34 The general directions were summarised by Lovell J in R v G [2015] SASC 186. 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 -- 7 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 6 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. 35 The accused elected to give evidence and called evidence, including evidence of good character. The accused was not obliged to give evidence and in doing so, he assumed no onus. His evidence is to be treated in the same way as any other witness in the trial, but I can give him what credit I consider appropriate for adopting a course he was not obliged to adopt. 36 The evidence of good character is relevant in two ways. Firstly, in assessing the likelihood of the accused committing the offence charged, and in assessing the credibility of his answers on oath. Accordingly, I direct myself that I must bear in mind this evidence when considering whether I can draw from the evidence a conclusion as to the accused’s guilt. I direct myself that I can use this evidence in assessing the likelihood of the accused having committed the offence charged and in evaluating the credibility of his evidence on oath, including any denial of the alleged offending. 37 However, the mere fact that someone is of good character cannot alter proven facts. It is only one of the many factors that the court can take into account in determining whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. The evidence 38 I turn now to summarise the evidence led at trial. SS – the complainant 39 SS gave her evidence in court with a one-way screen erected between her and the accused. She was accompanied by a court companion and the court was closed -- 8 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 7 during her evidence. Her evidence was recorded by audio-visual means. I direct myself that those arrangements must not influence the weight to be given to her evidence and I cannot draw any inference adverse to the accused as a result. Family background 40 SS said her mother was VL and her father NS, and she had two siblings, a sister CAS (four years older) and a brother, CS (two years older). She was born in Darwin and then moved to Mildura for a year, then Queensland for a year and then came to live in Adelaide in late 2005. When they moved to Mildura, her father remained in Darwin. Her parents separated in 2005 and she and her mother moved to Adelaide on Christmas Day 2005.2 Her siblings came to Adelaide later.3 41 When SS came to live in Adelaide, she went to Unley Primary School for years six and seven. She turned 11 years of age on 12 April 2005. She then corrected her evidence and said she came to Adelaide in December 2004.4 42 SS said it was difficult to remember when her brother came to Adelaide as she was young and her parents were in a domestic violence relationship at the time and there were legal proceedings and police officers involved.5 43 When SS first came to Adelaide with her mother, they lived in Unley with her grandfather. By Christmas 2005, she, CAS, CS and her mother were living in a house on Blyth Street Parkside.6 Meeting the accused 44 When her mother first started working in the Youth Court in early 2006, she started dating the accused. SS met him at the start of 2006 when she was in year 7 in primary school.7 45 SS said she found out that her mother would initially sneak him over and he would stay and leave before the children woke up. Later, SS, her mother and the accused would have day trips to Hahndorf or a swimming pool. That was her first memory of them doing things together. The day trips were on weekends because her mother and the accused worked full time. In the first few months, the accused would stay almost every night.8 She first recalled seeing him at the house in January or February 2006.9 2 T 75. 3 T 76. 4 T 76-77. 5 T 77. 6 T 78. 7 T 80. 8 T 81. 9 T 82. -- 9 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 8 46 SS said she used to share the bed with her mother until she was 11 years old but once the accused started coming over, her mother made her sleep in her own bed. 10 Initial relationship with the accused 47 During 2006 the accused was there almost every night. He would sleep in her mother’s bedroom. At that time, she described her relationship with the accused as one of best friends. She went to him for advice and trusted him. They were close. He made her feel special and loved. This was something she was not getting from her family because of the background of domestic violence and her parents’ separation.11 Commencement of sexual activity with the accused 48 The first occasion of sexual activity with the accused occurred at the Blyth Street home. It was in March 2006, before her 12th birthday. SS was on a mattress in the lounge room. It was not normal for her to sleep in the lounge room but she could not recall why she was doing so on this occasion. It was a queen-sized mattress. She could not remember where the mattress came from. A floor plan of the Blyth Street home was tendered: Exhibit P1. SS marked the position of the mattress in the lounge room on P1. The accused got on top of her under the blankets. He was in his underwear. SS said she had underwear on which was blue and had white butterflies. He was on top of her for up to five minutes, kissing her on her lips and neck. He was grinding on her, rubbing his penis on her vagina area. He then got off her and said, ‘I can’t do this. It’s wrong’ and then went back to her mother’s bedroom.12 49 The next day, SS acted as if everything was normal. She was asked if the accused had touched her in any other manner before this occasion on the mattress. She said, ‘Not that I can recall’ and that they may have held hands, ‘but that’s about all I can think of that would have happened’. She was then asked whether she cuddled or did anything like that.13 Her first response was: No, not until after we started being sexual.14 50 SS then corrected her evidence and said that they would cuddle on the couch before anything sexual happened. This was about two months before the mattress incident.15 She described it as follows: Well we would spoon on the couch. I would – he would be behind me and I would be in front of him and he would have his arm over me. Sometimes we would have a blanket on us and sometimes we didn’t, and then if we did have a blanket on us he would touch my 10 T 81-82. 11 T 83-84. 12 T 84-88 13 T 89. 14 T 89, 19. 15 T 90. -- 10 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 9 like boobs and my butt and like my body, I guess, underneath like the blanket while we were spooning or cuddling on the couch.16 51 When they spooned on the couch, the accused would touch her over or under her clothing depending on the situation. If they had a blanket over them, it would be underneath her clothing, if they did not he would have to be more careful. There were times when he would spoon her but not touch her breasts or bottom. Most of the time, however, he would touch her breasts, bottom and sometimes her vagina. The touching of her vagina was only over her clothing when they were spooning.17 52 SS said she commenced puberty when she was eight years old and got her first period when she was eleven years old. She had breast development at the time of the spooning with the accused. The spooning occurred over a period of about six months.18 53 There were occasions when her sister and brother were in the house and had seen them spooning but they never talked about it. The spooning took place on both of the couches marked in P1; one was a two-seater and one was a three-seater. A photograph of SS, CAS and CS on the three-seater couch on 25 December 2006, her sister’s birthday, was tendered: Exhibit P2.19 First occasion of sexual intercourse 54 The first time SS and the accused had sexual intercourse was in her bed in the Blyth Street home. She had green bedcovers with roses at the bottom and a wooden bed frame with a rose engraved in it. She described what happened: Then I was in bed laying on my back when [the accused] got on top of me. I’m not sure how our clothes came off but I remember him kissing me and kissing my neck and then when he started having sex with me I turned my face to the wall because I was in a lot of pain and I just remember facing the wall and crying, because I was in pain. It probably lasts like five minutes and then he just got off me and then left. We didn’t really have a conversation after that, he just kind of left the room. Then I was experiencing blood and I just through it was my period, because I didn’t understand about the hymen thing, because we hadn’t really learnt about that in primary school yet, so I kind of just misinterpreted it, the blood to be my period, but from that incident I know that was before my 12th birthday, so I was 11 at the time.20 55 SS said that it was late evening or early afternoon. She could not recall if anyone else was in the house. She could not remember how they both came to be in her bedroom. The door was closed but it did not have a lock on it. She did not see the accused put on a condom or discard one. She did not see him ejaculate and 16 T 89, 27-33. 17 T 90-91. 18 T 91. 19 T 92-93. 20 T 94, 2-17. -- 11 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 10 did not feel him ejaculate. After the sex had finished he said if she told anyone he would just deny it and no one would believe it anyway.21 56 Sexual intercourse between them happened two to three times a week in the home at Blyth Street and when the accused bought the Camden Park house it completely changed. There were more opportunities to have sex and no one was around. At Blyth Street there were times when they could not have sex on her bed because it made creaky noises, so they would have sex on the bedroom floor. Sometimes they had sex on the couch and once he tried to have sex with her in the laundry.22 57 The sexual intercourse was usually preceded by him kissing her lips and neck and then they would fondle each other; she would fondle his penis and he would touch her vagina. This was sometimes on top of or under clothing. He touched her vagina, breasts and bottom. Sometimes he would put his fingers in her vagina. These occasions would always end in penile vaginal intercourse.23 58 When they had sex on the bedroom floor, they mostly had their clothes on but her pants were down. The floor was made of wood. When they had sex on the couch, they would have a blanket on them and he would have sex from behind her. She could not recall if anyone was in the house at the time.24 The duration of the sexual activity varied, sometimes it was short and sometimes it could have been twenty to thirty minutes.25 Ejaculation and use of condoms 59 When SS and the accused had sex at Blyth Street, she could not recall seeing him ejaculate. He never used a condom. He told her that he did not use condoms with her mother and he did not want to risk using one or having them around because her mother would be suspicious.26 The accused’s penis 60 SS said the accused’s penis was circumcised and she saw that when she had sex with him and she gave him ‘hand-jobs’.27 The occasion when CAS walked into the bedroom 61 When SS and the accused had sex, her mother would be sleeping in her bed and her brother and sister were mostly out. Her sister had a boyfriend and her brother would go out with his friends. CAS was never in the bedroom when she 21 T 95. 22 T 97. 23 T 98. 24 T 104. 25 T 104. 26 T 104, 27 T 105. -- 12 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 11 had sex with the accused. However, there was one occasion when CAS came into the room. SS described that occasion as follows: There was one time she walked in the bedroom, she wasn’t in the bedroom. Me and [the accused] were in my bed, he was on top of me, he had his pants down that I can remember. We were both underneath the covers and my bed was making creaky noises and I just remember my sister, like, bursting in with the door to be like ‘What’s going on?’ and then she didn’t say anything, [the accused] just quickly got off me and then picked up my book and then we just acted like he was helping me read my book for my homework that I had to read.28 62 When they were under the covers, SS could not recall if the accused had clothing on the upper part of his body but she was pretty sure he would have had a top on because they could not be caught naked in the house. His and her pants were down because they were close to having sex at that time.29 63 There was a book there, she thought it was ‘Noddy’. When her sister came in, SS picked up the book.30 The accused had rolled off and was sitting up to the left of her and SS had the book in front of her.31 VL’s sleep and work schedule 64 SS said that her mother would go to bed at 7.00pm-8.00pm during the week. CAS would be out with her boyfriend and CS was out with his friends. Once VL was asleep, it was just SS and the accused. They did not have meals together as a family.32 65 VL would drop off SS to Unley Primary School and pick her up. SS went to after school care and her mother would collect her around 5.00pm.33 Unley Primary School 66 Photographs of SS when she was in year 7 in 2006 at Unley Primary School were tendered: Exhibit P3. SS identified her best friend, MUJ, in P3. In year 8, SS went to Unley High School. MUJ went to Mitcham Girls High School.34 Initial complaint 67 SS was in the playground at Unley Primary School with MUJ and mentioned that she might be pregnant but she was not sure. She then told MUJ that she was having sexual intercourse with the accused. MUJ was the first person she had told. At that time, they were just learning sexual education so she did not understand what sex was. She disclosed this to MUJ after she turned twelve years of age. The sexual intercourse with the accused had been going on for about three to four 28 T 99, 17-26. 29 T 100. 30 T 100. 31 T 101. 32 T 102. 33 T 103. 34 T 107. -- 13 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 12 months.35 SS was asked why she told MUJ that she thought she might be pregnant and she said: Because I didn’t understand the whole sex aspect of things and I thought when you have sex with someone you get pregnant straightaway kind of thing, because when you’re 12 years old and you’re just learning about sex, they don’t really tell you the proper details, they just kind of like ‘You’re going through puberty’ and that’s about it, really, that’s what we learned in primary school.36 68 At the time of her conversation with MUJ she understood sex to mean penile- vaginal sexual intercourse. She started getting periods when she was 11 years old and they were regular. Leading up to the conversation, her periods had been regular.37 Her periods would last five to seven days and when she was living in Blyth Street, she did not have sex with the accused during her period. When they had sex in Camden Park there were occasions when they had sex when she had her period.38 Laundry incident 69 In December 2006 or January 2007, MUJ came and stayed at the Blyth Street house. The accused had just returned from spending time with his family in Queensland.39 MUJ came for a sleepover because it was school holidays. SS said on this occasion the accused tried to have sex with her in the laundry: [MUJ] was over and she was in the lounge room and [the accused] took me away, I can’t remember why or what he said but we were in the lounge room – the laundry. I remember sitting on the washing machine and I had white shorts and he was trying to concoct – concoct me into having sex with him by, like, kissing my lips and my neck and he kept telling me that [MUJ] wouldn’t know that I was gone and I just kept saying ‘No, she would’ because at that time that I already knew I had told her that me and [the accused] were having sex at that time.40 70 SS said her mother would have been in the house but she would have been asleep. Her sister had moved in with her boyfriend and CS was out with friends.41 The laundry was at the back of the property. There were two doors into the laundry, one from the kitchen and one from the back of the house. The back door had a clear window.42 She and the accused did not have sex in the laundry; he only kissed her. They were in there together for about ten minutes. She was worried that MUJ would say something or someone would find out and ‘then I’d get separated from 35 T 108-109. 36 T 108, 34; T 109, 1-3. 37 T 109. 38 T 110. 39 T 110. 40 T 111, 13-23. 41 T 111. 42 T 112. -- 14 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 13 my family again, so kind of didn’t want that to happen’.43 Being separated from her family was one of the reasons she did not tell her mother what was happening.44 Sexual activity in the presence of her mother 71 SS said that there was an occasion when she, her mother and the accused were in her mother’s bedroom watching television in bed. The accused was in the middle and she and her mother were on either side of him. SS described what happened next: Once my mum went to sleep, [the accused] rolled on his side and I gave him a hand job while my mum was sleeping next to him and I remember using moisturiser to lube his circumcised penis to help him ejaculate, I guess, at this, like occasion.45 72 The moisturiser was on her mother’s bedside table on the side SS was, which was closest to the window. She was not sure if she had to open a drawer to get it out. The sexual act lasted about five minutes.46 The accused had his underwear on but she took his penis out of his underwear. This occasion was after they started having sex.47 Valentine’s Day and birthday cards 73 SS was in year 8 at High School on Valentine’s Day 2007. She did not get any Valentine’s Day cards and was quite upset. She walked into her bedroom at Blyth Street and there was a rose on her bed and a card that said, ‘Happy Valentine’s Day from your secret admirer’. It was the accused’s handwriting. Afterwards, he took her to McDonald’s to get a frozen Coke. She was not sure if they had any sexual activity that day. The accused told her it was from him on their way to McDonalds and she thanked him for it.48 SS also gave this evidence: HER HONOUR Q …On this day on Valentine’s Day were you hoping to get a Valentine’s card. A Yeah, I guess so, because it was like the first year of high school and you don’t know who doesn’t like you and you just want to feel special, I guess, but it doesn’t happen, I guess. Q And was that something you’d spoken to with [the accused] or your mother or your family. A No. No. I think he just surprised me in a way, like, because he went and bought my mum a big bunch of roses and bought her, like, a Valentine’s Day present, I think he 43 T 113, 36-37. 44 T 114. 45 T 114, 25-30. 46 T 115. 47 T 116. 48 T116-118. -- 15 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 14 just wanted to make me special as well, so I think that’s why he just bought me, like, one rose and the card.49 74 SS identified the Valentine’s Day card she received in 2007 and it was tendered: Exhibit P4. Another Valentine’s Day card was also tendered as part of P4. SS said she received that card on Valentine’s Day in 2008. It was a smaller card with a little heart chocolate. The note in the card was, ‘To [S], Happy Valentine’s Day. From ? you’ll never guess who’. She did not discuss this card with the accused but it was his handwriting.50 She had not received any other Valentine’s Day cards that day. She kept both cards to have ‘memories of my life’. SS said she had kept a lot of things over the years. She kept birthday cards and things like that.51 75 Photographs of three birthday cards given to SS were tendered: Exhibit P5. The first one was for her 12th birthday. Her mother’s handwriting was on the card. It read, ‘Dear [S] Happy Birthday. Hope you love your present. All our love, Mum [the accused] [C] and [S]’. 76 The next card was a year later and was in the accused’s handwriting. It read, ‘Dear [S], Hope you have a great birthday. Love, Drewsome, Drem, Huggles XXX OOO. SS said her nickname for the accused was Drewsome but she did not recognise the others. The front of the card had a photograph of an overweight man with a long flowing white beard and moustache riding a girl’s bicycle with a pink basket and pink tassels. The caption was ‘getting older’ and the text inside was ‘ain’t for sissies. Happy birthday’.52 77 The third birthday card was for SS’ 14th birthday. It was in the accused’s handwriting. On the front of the card was a photograph of a very overweight man with a short T-shirt on exposing a very large belly protruding out over the top of his pants. The caption inside was ‘how bout a birthday kiss pretty thing’. The handwriting read ‘Dear [S] anything else is going to cost you! Hope you have a fabulous 14th B’day! Love Mum, Drew, & Puff. xxx ooo purr.’ 78 SS said the cards were associated with gifts but she could not recall what they were. She was presented with the gift and the card at the same time. Her mother and the accused were there when she was given the gift and card and she opened them in front of them. This was the case for all three birthday cards.53 Camden Park 79 The accused bought a two-bedroom unit at Camden Park but SS could not remember when that was. The accused took her there on the first day he got his keys to the unit and they had penile-vaginal sexual intercourse in the main bedroom 49 T 117, 6-19. 50 T 119. 51 T 119-120. 52 T 122. 53 T 123. -- 16 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 15 on the carpeted floor in front of the bay window. There was no furniture in the house at that time. SS thought this was in 2007 when she was in year 8.54 80 SS, her mother and the accused moved into Camden Park but she was not sure how long they lived in Blyth Street after the accused bought the house at Camden Park. Her sister and brother were living with their father at the time. SS gave this evidence: I just know that when we lived at Blyth Street once he got his Camden Park house, every Sunday I would go watch him play soccer in the morning and then after his soccer game, because it was around the corner from his house at Camden Park, he would take me there and we’d have sex on his, like, obviously had his furniture there by then but then we would have sex in his house and on his bed, but we still lived in Blyth Street at that time.55 81 SS said she would watch the accused play soccer every Sunday at Plympton Bulldogs near Marion Road. He would drive her there.56 After soccer, he would drive her to the Camden Park house. SS said no other family members watched the accused play soccer.57 82 SS described what would happen when the accused took her to the house at Camden Park after soccer: Okay. When we would go to the Camden Park address, majority of the time we would have penis and vagina sex but because we had more freedom and no-one was around in that house he, well, from my experience, trained me to be the sex doll and pretty much we had no boundaries and then we did everything in a sexual aspect of ways. We’d always end up having penis and vagina sex afterwards.58 83 SS was asked what was different from the sexual activity at Blyth Street and she said: One where he would tie me up with his work ties to his metal bed frame, there was times where we did anal sex, there was times where he would, as he would tie me up he would want to pleasure me and then give me oral sex. He would kiss my body, sometimes it would be vice-versa, I would give him oral sex, and then after sex we’d cuddle for a little bit and then he would have a shower and we would go back to the Blyth Street like nothing happened.59 84 SS and the accused attended the Camden Park house for sexual activity for over a year. She and the accused performed oral sex on each other at Camden Park but she could not recall that occurring at Blyth Street.60 They would always have sex in the master bedroom on his bed with the metal frame.61 54 T 124. 55 T 125, 16-24. 56 T 125. 57 T 126. 58 T 126, 21-27. 59 T 126, 31-38. 60 T 127. 61 T 133. -- 17 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 16 85 Once she and her mother moved into the house at Camden Park, the accused’s bed with the metal frame was replaced with her mother’s bed.62 86 When the accused tied her up by her wrists to the bed frame he would kiss her body, her neck, give her oral sex and then it would end up in penile-vaginal sex.63 This happened about four or five different times. SS said she had suppressed a lot of it in her memories. She had suppressed some other sexual acts as well.64 87 SS was asked whether she recalled anal sex taking place. She said: A I do recall anal sex taking place, yes. We did it one time that I know of. I know it was in the Camden Park house and I know it was when mum and I were living there. It was one of the times where, like, obviously I met up with him in the city, we drove home to Camden Park and then we obviously had sex, anal, sex, we had a conversation about it beforehand and I wanted to do it to please him. So we did it and then afterwards we had to pick up my mum because she finished work at 6 and I remember getting in the car with [the accused] to pick up mum and he was driving his grey Jeep at the time and I remember how much pain I was in afterwards. Q Where were you in pain. A In my butt, anus area. … Q Do you remember where this occurred or any details. A Yes it was in the master bedroom on my mum’s bed. Q Sorry I might have got this wrong but you recall this happening on one occasion. A Yes, just the anal sex was one occasion. Q You said you had a conversation about it. What, if anything, can you recall about that conversation. A It was the day of it and I just recall that I wanted to try it, or we both wanted to try it and we talked about doing it together. That’s what I can recall. Q How old were you when you had this conversation. A I was 13 at the time.65 88 SS said no one was home at the time she had anal sex with the accused. Her mother was at work.66 89 Before they moved into the house at Camden Park, when the accused had sex with SS he would start off without a condom and then once he was about to 62 T 128. 63 T 128. 64 T 129. 65 T 129, 36-38; T 130, 1-29. 66 T 130-131. -- 18 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 17 ejaculate, he would put one on and then ejaculate inside her and then take it off and put it in the red bin outside. Once they all moved in, he stopped using condoms because he was not using condoms with VL and he told SS he did not want to get caught out by VL.67 90 After they moved into the Camden Park home the accused would ejaculate on her body or his, depending on what position they were in.68 They would have sex in the master bedroom, on the couch in the lounge room, sometimes in her bedroom and sometimes in the bathroom on the sink bench. On all of these occasions, her mother was at work.69 91 A floor plan of the Camden Park house was tendered: Exhibit P6. Bedroom one was the master bedroom. Her bed was in bedroom two. SS marked the position of the beds in each room on P6: Exhibit P6A.70 SS moving out of home for 6 months 92 SS said moved out of home for six months between June or July 2008 and lived with her father, sister and brother in Mitchell Park. During the time she lived with her father, she did not speak to the accused or her mother at all. Her mobile phone had been confiscated by her mother and she had to get a new one and did not know anyone’s number.71 93 SS was asked why she moved in with her father and she said: My mum didn’t want me to talk to my dad because of all the domestic violence stuff that was going on, so [the accused] heard me talking to my dad, then he told my mum and then it started a massive argument between me and my mum and it got physical and after that I just didn’t want to live there anymore, so the next day, when my dad randomly rocked up, I just kicked the window or kicked the windscreen off the window and jumped out and went with my brother and my sister and my dad and then I lived with them for six months.72 94 She did not go back to the house at Camden Park during the six months she lived with her father and did not see or speak to her mother or the accused. She moved back into the Camden Park house because: I had a fight with my sister and she told my dad that I was having sex with other boys, even though her boyfriend lived with us, she told my dad that I was having sex with other boys and then she pretty much was like threatening me that my dad was going to send me to Darwin to go live with my grandma and I didn’t want that, so I went back to my mum’s house.73 67 T 131. 68 T 131. 69 T 132. 70 T 133-134. 71 T 135, 137. 72 T 136, 1-10. 73 T 137, 14-20. -- 19 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 18 95 On the first night she returned, she had sex with the accused. She remembered sitting on the couch and catching up with the accused about what happened over the previous six months. She was upset because she felt as if she was betraying him by sleeping with other people. He told her that he expected her to have sex with other people and did not seem bothered and they ended up having sex on the couch. It was the usual lead-up to the sex. Her mother was home, but she was asleep in her bedroom.74 96 The sexual relationship between SS and the accused resumed and it was the same as it had been before she moved out.75 97 Photographs of the house at Camden Park were tendered: Exhibit P7. SS said they depicted the house exactly as it was when she was living there. The couch on which she and the accused had sex was in photograph 2 and 5. The bed in the master bedroom was her mother’s and not the metal frame bed.76 Morning after pill 98 SS said there was one, possibly two occasions when the accused had sexual intercourse with her and ejaculated inside her vagina. On the first of these occasions, they had sex while she had her period and the accused told her she could not get pregnant. SS became paranoid and asked her mum for the morning after pill. Her mother took her to a chemist in Kurralta Park and bought her the morning after pill. This occurred after she had moved back in following the six months she spent with her father. 99 SS told her mother that she had sex with someone at school and she was scared she was going to get pregnant. She was scared she was going to get pregnant but she did not want to tell her mother the truth because she did not want to be separated from her. She thought if she told her the truth, she would be taken away and her life would change.77 100 When asked where she thought she would be taken away to, she said: A My parents, because they – growing up in a very domestic violence situation and a lot of times the police didn’t do much, they would train us and tell us kids that if we got Child Protective Services involved ever, that they were going to split us all three kids up. Q Police told you that? A Sorry? Q Did the police tell you that. 74 T 138. 75 T 144. 76 T 145-146. 77 T 148. -- 20 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 19 A No, my parents, sorry. Q Your parents, thank you. A So we were trained to, like, not tell, like the police anything, or child protective services stuff because, like, we’ll get separated from each other. Q So, in that context, where did you think you’d be taken away to. A I’m not sure, I just didn’t – because I didn’t know the law or anything at the time because I was so young, I didn’t know. I just didn’t want to be taken away from my mum.78 101 There was a second occasion when she asked her mother to get her the morning after pill again. She could not recall when but she knew it was whilst she was living at Camden Park.79 She was not one hundred percent sure about this occasion.80 Holidays in Queensland 102 SS said she went on a couple of holidays to Queensland with her mother and the accused to see his family. She said there were ‘roughly’ three occasions. 103 The first was when she was in year 8 and it was in the June/July school holidays. She went with the accused and her mother and they first went to his parents’ house in the Glass House Mountains. Her mother and the accused shared a bedroom and she was in his parents’ study.81 On that occasion, the accused tried to come into the bedroom and wanted to have sex with her but she said no because she did not want her mother or his parents walking in.82 They spent about two days there.83 104 They then went to the accused’s grandparents’ house in Dicky Beach. It was a two-storey house. Photographs of the house were tendered: Exhibit P8. Her mother and the accused were in a bedroom upstairs and SS slept on a couch upstairs because she wanted to be near her mother. However, once her mother went to bed, she and the accused went downstairs into a bedroom with three beds in it. The accused did not want to mess up the bed, so he leant her over the chest of drawers and they had penile-vaginal sex over the chest of drawers. They were probably kissing before that and fondling. This lasted about twenty minutes and was around 7.30-8.00pm. There was no one else in the house.84 78 T 148, 32-38; T 149, 1-12. 79 T 149. 80 T 150. 81 T 150. 82 T 150-151. 83 T 152. 84 T 151. -- 21 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 20 105 They spent the rest of the holiday at Dicky Beach but there was only the one occasion of sexual intercourse.85 106 The second trip to Queensland was in school holidays, possibly the next year and in the Christmas holidays.86 SS was friends with the accused’s niece, E, and they went there to spend time with her. There was no sexual activity between her and the accused. By then they had ended their sexual relationship. SS then said she was not quite sure if the sexual relationship had ended but confirmed there was no sexual activity during that trip.87 SS identified E as the person in the photograph on page 3 of P8. SS was also in the photograph but only her legs were visible.88 Those photographs were taken in June/July 2009.89 107 SS kept the boarding passes from her first trip to Queensland: Exhibit P9. Sheidow Park 108 In October 2008, SS said they moved out of Camden Park and into a house that her mother and the accused bought in Sheidow Park. There was one occasion when the accused tried to have sex with her. He had a work trip coming up and had a government car. He brought the car home because he was going to work in the country the following week.90 It was January 2009 and a Friday or Saturday night.91 It was a white Commodore with government plates.92 SS described what happened: …he decided to take me for a drive down to Moana Beach and then he found a spot to park, like, in a car park where no cars were around, it was pitch dark at night, and we both got in the back of the seat, the back seat, and then he was lying on top of me kissing me, kissing my neck, rubbing his body against mine and then I just – something overcame me and I just asked him to stop and I said ‘I can’t do this anymore’. And then, after that, I – we just went home.93 109 It was about a 25-minute drive from the house to Moana. Her mother was home at the time. 94 110 After this occasion there was no more sexual activity between SS and the accused. She cut him off and did not want to have anything to do with him but she still had to live with him for two years. She stayed civil and they would still do things together but they were not best friends anymore.95 85 T 152. 86 T 152. 87 T 153. 88 T 154. 89 T 155. 90 T 157. 91 T 158-159. 92 T 158. 93 T 157, 22-38. 94 T 159. 95 T 159-160. -- 22 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 21 Report to police and pretext calls 111 SS reported the matter to police in March 2020. She then participated in two recorded phone calls to the accused which had been arranged by police. SS identified her signature on a document dated 23 June 2023 and entitled ‘Investigator Pretext Preamble’ which was tendered: Exhibit P10.96 A second document with the same title dated 5 July 2023 was also tendered: Exhibit P11. 112 SS said the recorded phone calls were her own decision. She knew that they may or may not help her case and she undertook them to see what the outcome was. She knew the accused would not openly admit anything if she asked him if he remembered if they had a relationship. She was unsure what to say so she kept having a ‘catch-up’ conversation because they had not spoken for over fifteen years.97 113 SS did not think he would make any admissions because when she was a child, she tried to send him a sexual text message and he did not respond. He later told her off for texting him something like that because it could get him in trouble.98 114 A disk with the two pretext calls was tendered and they were played in court: Exhibit P12. The transcripts were marked MFI-P12A and MFI-P12B. Pretext call 23 June 2023 115 The accused answered the phone and when SS told him who it was he said ‘who’ and then when she repeated her name and asked if he remembered her, he said, ‘I do’ and laughed. They exchanged information about each other’s lives and the accused told her that he had two children who were with him at that time. The accused asked SS what she was doing with herself and asked about her siblings and her father and LL. He asked if everything was all right with her father and LL and ‘all that’ and whether ‘it all settled down’. 116 The accused said ‘Well it’s great to hear from you again…like yeah, I still think of you guys now and then. I mean obviously it didn’t work out very well…with me and your Mum but…yeah I’m glad you guys are still around and doing well’.99 117 SS asked the accused ‘do you remember any other times? Like, do you remember going to Queensland with like, …[inaudible] and all that?’ The accused said ‘yeah’ and told her that he took his children there. 118 SS then asked the accused if he still played for the Plympton Bulldogs and he said he gave that up years ago. The conversation then turned to the accused’s 96 T 160. 97 T 161. 98 T 162. 99 MFI-P12A, page 5, 93-99. -- 23 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 22 children and he asked her whether she had children. After the accused told her it was good to hear from her, she said: It was really good to hear from you too. I might, have to get in contact sooner. … Well I’ll have to ring you um again soon or we should catch up.100 119 SS was asked why she said in the first call ‘It was really good to hear from you, too. I might have to get in contact sooner’. She said that was because she worked in customer service and ‘you just keep on continuing on with a conversation and I wasn’t planning on talking to him or meeting up with him soon’. When she said ‘it was really good to hear from you too’ she was using her customer service skills but she did have feelings towards the accused from her relationship with him.101 Second pretext call 120 In the second call on 5 July 2023, after talking about the accused’s children, the conversation continued: SS: Yeah. Yeah well. Yeah I just been thinking of like um, things between you and me and you really ‘cause all the stuff I’d like gone through recently and I’ve been like, losing my head Accused: So you really thinking a lot about what happened? You alright? SS: About what. Accused : Like you said what happened recently I, didn’t really go into a lot of detail, I didn’t wanna ask. SS: Um with like going to Darwin and all that. Accused : Yeah.102 121 The discussion then turned to NS and VL and the accused said he could not get over how grown-up SS sounded. SS then said: SS: …Did you ever like, still think about our times that we had together? Accused: Yeah funny enough all the time. SS: Really? Accused: Yeah. Not to sound creepy or anything but it’s pretty much every morning like, on the, I’ll explain. On the way to work there’s a sign and there’s two girls and one of them I swear to God looks like your doppelganger. 100 MFI-P12A, page 8, 150, 160. 101 T 164. 102 MFI-P12B, 46-51. -- 24 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 23 SS: Really? Accused: At least, at least the way I remember you anyway. SS: Yeah that’s funny. Accused: So it reminds me every day on the way to work. SS: Oh that’s hilarious. Accused: Yeah. SS: Well you always made me feel loved so like, I don’t have like, any hard feelings. Accused: Oh thank you. SS: Yeah you always made me feel like, special and everything so yeah. I still think about the times together as well. Accused: Yeah SS: Yeah Accused: Hang on just gotta go inside..hang on…Hello.103 122 The conversation then moved to SS’s relationships and overseas travel and where each of them had been living over the years. When SS described her relationship with her niece and said ‘she looks at me and she just gets away with everything. I just laugh at her’ the conversation continued: Accused: That sounds familiar for some reason. Can’t quite put my finger on it. SS: What? Accused: Little kid, always clingy, think the world of. SS: That sounds like me. Accused: Exactly. SS: I know. Only you would know that though. Accused: Yeah it was funny, up until I guess I met you… SS: Mm Accused:…I didn’t actually want kids at all. SS: Really? Accused: I don’t think, you in particular, no so much [C] ‘cause he didn’t really need me. That was probably the tipping point where I started to think I wanted kids. 103 MFI-P12B, 80-95. -- 25 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 24 SS: Yep. Accused: ‘Cause in a way I kinda felt like, felt like a Dad. SS: Yep. Accused: It’s something I’d never experienced before it was, it was amazing. SS: Yeah oh that’s good. At least you got a good experience out of it that’s all you can say ya know. Accused: Yeah thanks. It was one good experience yeah.104 123 The conversation then turned to VL’s current partner, the relationships that the accused and SS had had and having pets. After this, SS and the accused talked about her cat and the employment she had had. SS then asked the accused, ‘Do you ever think like, what is your favourite memory of me, do you remember?’. The accused said: Accused: Um…you know what I really enjoyed kicking the ball around with you in the backyard. SS: Mm. Accused: that was, yeah. It’s something so small but it’s something I’ll always remember ‘cause it yeah, like I said it was one of those turning points where I felt like I could be a Dad. SS: Yep. Yeah. Accused: And I just, yeah it just felt yeah, I really enjoyed it just, even like sitting down and doing homework which I hate…105 … Accused: I dunno it’s just little things, you know, hanging out, talking, it’s weird when I met you like, you just seemed like this … I’ll always remember you as like this little, like a bird with a broken wing trying to fly. Yeah, that was adorable. SS: Yeah sums me up doesn’t it? Accused: I just wanted to do what I could to help ya. SS: Yeah. Na I reckon my favourite time was when you surprised me with the Valentine’s Day card on my bed and the rose and then we went driving to like get, frozen Coke at McDonalds. Yeah. Accused: I forgot all about that. SS: Yeah. I still have that card. 104 MFI-P12B, 187-203. 105 MFI-P12B, 351-355. -- 26 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 25 Accused: I had those notes and things you wrote and made for so long until my ex-wife basically told me to get rid of ‘em. SS: Aaaaw that’s annoying. Accused: Like I couldn’t really justify why I had old… SS: Yeah. Accused: that was the thing like so yeah I lost that one.106 124 The conversation then turned to the house at Blyth Street and Camden Park: SS: Yeah I do and I remember your house in Camden Park. Accused: Yeah. SS: Yeah, remember how I used to go there after your soccer games? Accused: I remember, yeah and I was building a stupid gym that I never used. SS: Oh year that’s right in the garage. Accused: Yep. SS: Yeah. Accused: I actually really liked that place, I think it was my, that’s my first house. SS: Yeah I think it was your first house, or your first unit…I think you were the first I was the first one you took there. Accused: That’s right ‘cause the house was pretty much empty. SS: Yeah the house was empty and we went there. Accused: Mm. SS: Cause…just me and you. Accused: Mm. So what, you got um, access to a car, you got a car here?107 125 The conversation then turned to the cars that each of them were driving, what LL was doing and SS’s relationship with CAS and the accused’s relationship with his sister. Eventually SS said: …Yeah well I’ll let you go but um yeah, well you have my number now so we can probably ah catch up another time or something like, over the weekend when you’re, don’t have your kids or anything.108 106 MFI-P12B, 359-369. 107 MFI-P12B, 390-403. 108 MFIP-12B, 498. -- 27 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 26 126 SS said she spoke with the accused for a longer period of time in the second pretext call because she was more comfortable and confident and it was not as ‘triggering’ as the first call.109 Cross-examination 127 SS said her trauma had affected some of her memory because some occasions she had suppressed. She did not suggest that her trauma made her say something happened that which did not or say something untrue deliberately.110 Notes provided to police 128 SS provided notes to police which were in a spiral bound notebook and also loose-leaf notes.111 She said she was expecting those to be provided to the defence.112 Cannabis consumption 129 SS agreed that in the notebook there were multiple references to budgeting for ‘weed’ which was a reference to cannabis. She agreed that she was working out how much she could spend on cannabis and other expenses while she was living in Darwin.113 This was in 2021 after she had reported the matter to police. On one occasion she wrote down $50, on another $100 and on another, $200. She began smoking cannabis four days after she reported the matter to police and tried to commit suicide using Panadol and ended up in ICU for a week. She was seeing her psychologist at the time and she had been on anti-depressants since 2019 and mood stabilisers since 2021 and she smoked cannabis since July 2020 onwards.114 130 She smoked about 15 grams a week in a joint. She smoked every day. It did not really affect her but helped her cope. It numbed her out and helped her sleep. She only smoked it at home and it helped her deal with her trauma. SS said that in 2021, smoking cannabis helped her to be able to think clearly about what was happening at the time and write it in detail; when she smoked cannabis she could cope and write it down without freaking herself out and having a panic attack. Cannabis helped her think more clearly about the memories she had suppressed.115 Other medication 131 SS started taking Valium when she was 18 years old, before she went on anti- depressants. When she saw a psychologist for the first time, he asked her whether she had been sexually abused. After that, every night before going to bed she would think about the sexual acts and have panic attacks. As a result, she started taking Valium so she could sleep. SS said she was not addicted to Valium; the longest 109 T 191-192. 110 T 193. 111 T 193. 112 T 194. 113 T 194. 114 T 195. 115 T 197. -- 28 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 27 period of time that she did not take it for was two years. She last took Valium in June for three weeks and then did not take it again until the trial started.116 She last took Valium the night before being cross-examined.117 132 The anti-depressant she was on was Duloxetine, 60mg. Her mood stabiliser was Epilim, 3000mg a day. She was on anti-depressants since 2020 and mood stabiliser since 2022. Her psychiatrist told her that she should not be consuming cannabis. She was told that taking cannabis and Epilim can cause a bipolar psychotic episode. She had not had an episode in the three years of being on Epilim.118 133 SS said none of the substances she was taking had affected her memory. She had trained her brain to forget and suppress things because of the domestic violence relationship between her mother and father. SS agreed she had dyslexia.119 History of domestic violence 134 SS agreed that in one of the loose-leaf notes she wrote ‘How I am affected’ and ‘by the time I was 10, I was already so damaged from my family I just wanted to get noticed and fit in’: Exhibit D 13. SS said that was definitely correct.120 SS explained that in her life they had to go to a lot of domestic violence shelters.121 In every state she lived in, except South Australia, she had been in a domestic violence house, had police around her all the time and never had a close relationship with her brother or sister. Her father was being violent to her mother and most of the time the children called the police. He was also physically violent to the children.122 135 SS said her father was currently living in the Northern Territory. The last time he was in prison was in 2018 and he was paroled in 2021. He had been sent to prison on a few occasions for drug trafficking. Much earlier he had been sentenced for assaulting a police officer.123 136 SS said her father raped her mother when she was in the bed next to her. She did not think her father knew SS was in the bed at the time. She was seven or eight years old.124 137 SS said her father pursued her mother across Australia. The family went from Darwin to Mildura for a year and then to Queensland for a year. Her parents separated in Queensland. Her mother’s father was in Adelaide so SS and her mother came to Adelaide on Christmas day. At this time, her father was threatening 116 T 197-198. 117 T 199. 118 T 199-200. 119 T 200. 120 T 201. 121 T 209. 122 T 210. 123 T 210. 124 T 211. -- 29 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 28 to kill SS and her mother. He went to her mother’s work and took all the tyres off her car. They stayed in a hotel on Christmas Eve and then her mother hid SS in the toilets until the federal police escorted her to the plane.125 138 In the notes, SS agreed she wrote ‘she made it out like my dad tried to kill me and her’. SS said that her father was never allowed to see her or her mother because her mother had intervention orders in place. Her father kept breaching the orders. Because SS was so attached to her mother, when she would see him being violent, it would trigger her and she would have nightmares and blood noses and panic attacks. She was scared of her father until she was 13 years old and went and lived with him.126 139 On one occasion at the Federal Court in Queensland, when they were going through Family Court, her father found out that her mother was awarded custody of her brother and that he would not be able to see SS. He was out the front of the courthouse and then they were in an undercover police car which he chased down the streets.127 140 Her father moved to South Australia permanently and continued to breach intervention orders in that State. At the start of her mother’s relationship with the accused, they had to stay in his apartment in Glenelg for a couple of nights, because her father knew where the house at Blyth Street was and would harass her mother and make her feel unsafe.128 141 SS said her mother assaulted her the night the accused told her mother that SS had been on the phone to her father. She was hitting SS on the head in the bathroom and SS got angry and punched her foot. That was the only time her mother had ever been physical with her and the next day she went to live with her father.129 SS had seen her mother get into physical fights with CAS. There was a time when her sister pulled out her mother’s hair. CAS was 15 at the time.130 142 SS was aware that her father had threatened the accused a number of times. SS said her father still wanted to be with her mother and have the family dynamic and the accused was in the way. There were many custody proceedings.131 SS was aware that LL provided an affidavit for her father but she did not know what was in it.132 143 SS said LL was her grandfather on her mother’s side. They lived with him for a year in Unley when they first moved to Adelaide and he would come to the 125 T 211. 126 T 212. 127 T 213. 128 T 214. 129 T 214. 130 T 215. 131 T 215. 132 T 216-218. -- 30 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 29 house at Blyth Street a bit. However, her mother and LL had a falling out over the accused and after that she did not talk to him for a few years.133 144 SS was asked whether she ever recalled saying that she lost trust in people because she felt like her mother was allowing this to go on. SS said she never blamed her mother for this but she did lose trust in a lot of people. SS was then taken to one of her notes which became Exhibit D 14 in which she wrote ‘I feel like because my mum was allowing this to go on’. She said she was not one hundred percent sure what she meant by that sentence. It could be because of the domestic violence going on, but she always thought she herself was to blame for the sexual abuse. She thought if she told police or anyone, or even her mother, she would blame SS and hate her for it and then she would be taken away.134 SS said she was not suggesting in that note that her mother was allowing the sexual abuse to go on.135 SS was asked: Q Could you have been suggesting that she was allowing your father to be violent towards you. A Mainly, yeah. Like it’s out of her control, but I guess she tried her best to get away from this domestic violence situation for many, many years, but she had three children with him and he followed her, so in a way, yeah, she kind of did allow this, this toxic abuse of domestic violence to continue throughout child and teenage hoods of us kids, yes. Q So she tried to get you away from your father. A Mm-hmm. Q Restraining orders were taken out, you moved state. A Several times, yes. Q But in a way she was allowing this to happen. A Well, she tried her best to do the right thing to protect us, but a DVO can only help you so much. He breached them all the time, so what else can mum do? Q That’s exactly the point isn’t it. A Yep. Q Your mother did what she could to stay away from your father. A Yeah, she did. Q So it’s a nonsense to suggest she allowed anything, isn’t it. 133 T 215. 134 T 219. 135 T 220. -- 31 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 30 A In a way, yes, but it still affects your children when they go through this kind of stuff, and not being able to understand when you’re only, like, 10 years old, like 10, 11 years old when this is all going on.136 145 SS was reminded of her evidence that her parents trained them as children not to tell the police or child protective services anything because they would get separated. SS said: A Yeah, that’s all correct. When I was around mostly in Darwin, when I was around seven of eight years old, when us three kids had to deal with calling the police and all that, a lot of the times our parents and my dad would be, like, ‘Don’t tell them anything’, my dad would either get arrested for the night and then come back the next day, or we would have to go to a victims of crime shelter for a couple of days and that’s all they would do. So they always said to us ‘If you, like, don’t tell the cops anything and don’t tell the child protective anything because you will get separated’. Q When did your mother ever say ‘Don’t tell the cops anything’. A It was more my dad than my mum. Q When did your mother ever say ‘Don’t tell the cops’- A It would have been – Q Hang on, just wait. A Sorry. Q When did your mother ever say ‘Don’t speak to the police’. A Never, my mum’s never said not speak to the police. It’s mostly been my dad. Q How can it mostly be your father if your mother’s never asked you to do that. A Because my mum would be in that situation where, like, one memory I’ve had where my dad was – my mum locked herself in the bedroom in Darwin and then he was trying to get an axe from God knows where, from downstairs I think, and us kids had to run to the phone box down the road and call the police because who fucking knew what was going to happen? Like, he was trying to axe the door down to get to my mum. So – Q Was it just a slip when you said it was your parents who told you. A Yeah, just my parents, no-one else. Q No, but it wasn’t your parents plural. A Well it’s my – Q It was just your dad. 136 T 221, 19-38; T 222, 1-8. -- 32 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 31 A Mostly my dad, yes. Q You say ‘mostly’. A Yeah. Q It was only your dad wasn’t it. A Yeah only my dad, yeah. Q So why, when her Honour asked you, did you say it was your parents. A Well I haven’t ever called the police on my mum or had to on my mum at all, so after we’ve come to Adelaide most of the time it was my mum calling the police on my dad, it was never me. Q You were being asked why you didn’t tell you mum if it was true that you needed the morning-after pill because you’d been having sex with [the accused]. … A I didn’t want to tell my mum because I was scared I was going to lose her and I didn’t want to be separated from her and that’s why I didn’t want to tell my mum and I just lied to her and told her I had sex with a boy from high school. Q Why would you lose your mum because – if it was true that [the accused] had been sexually abusing you. A Because I didn’t understand the court system or any law behind any of this. I didn’t know what would happen. I just didn’t want to be taken away from my mum, because by that stage I didn’t have any family around me, it was just me and mum. There was no brother, there was no sister, there was no dad at that time. It was just me and my mum. Q Your mum was a family lawyer, yes. A Yes. Q You’d been through court proceedings. A Not at that time, no. Q Well, restraining orders. A No, like, she kept me away from all that. She kept me away from all the court system up until I was older, or old enough to understand it and when I made that decision to go watch my mum in the Family Court. Other than that I didn’t know anything about the law. I just knew that these people worked in the court system and they knew more than me. I have dyslexia and – Q Why would ignorance of the law or your dyslexia make you think you would be taken away from your mother if that man had abused you. A Because I didn’t understand what abuse was at that time. -- 33 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 32 Q You didn’t understand what abuse was, but you thought you might be pregnant to [the accused] and so you chose to lie about why you needed the morning-after pill. Have I got that right. A Yes, and this is probably the only time in my life that me and my mum actually had a stable life when we lived with [the accused]. Q Who was going to separate you from your mother. A I don’t know. That’s the thing, I was too young to even know. I don’t – Q Any suggestion that your mother would have told you not to be involved with the police, not to make a complaint to the police would be wrong, wouldn’t it. A If she – if I came to her as a child, yeah, she would have taken me to the police straight away.137 146 SS agreed that it was the accused and her mother who wanted her to go to the police to report her father for hanging around her school. The accused was encouraging her to go and interact with the police.138 Sexual intercourse with the accused and others 147 SS said that when she first had sexual intercourse with the accused, she did not realise her virginity had been taken and she thought the bleeding might have been her period. She did not understand what sex was at the time she told MUJ.139 148 SS was shown a further page of notes, entitled, ‘the only two adult relationships I had were based on sex’. The notes were tendered: Exhibit D 15. SS agreed she wrote: My jealouse came from mum and [the accused]. When they would have sex I would get angery and I would make it obovise. It would just start a fight between me and mum. I always thought there was something wrong with me and that why [the accused] didn’t pick me. 149 SS said that everything she wrote was true. She was asked for what it was that the accused did not pick her. She said that by this time she and the accused were having sex and she became jealous when he was having sex with her mother. She wanted his attention and to have sex with her. He was the one who was giving her the attention and making her feel loved and special. SS was asked when she started wanting to have sex with the accused140 and she said: A I was 12 probably. It was when we were most likely going just to the Camden Park house with just the two of us, but I remember this occasion, writing this being jealous, it did start happening when we were having sex in Blyth Street and mum and [the accused] were having sex in obviously the bedroom in Blyth Street. 137 T 223, 5-38; T 224-225, 1-33. 138 T 225-226. 139 T 227. 140 T 230. -- 34 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 33 Q But you said [the accused] didn’t pick you. A At that time, no, that one sexual act, no, but I got jealous because, like, he was having sex with someone else so I felt like he was cheating on my and he was hurting my feelings. As I said, I was only 11 or 12, I don’t understand the concept of a relationship, let alone sexual activity at that age and wanting to do it or not. I mostly want to do it to him because I loved him and that’s what the term I thought sex and love were. Q When did you first realise you loved him. A Earlier on, before we started having sex. I looked up to him, I took advice from him, I looked at him as my best friend and I would go to him for everything. Q Was there anything he ever did to you that you didn’t want to happen. A No, not – I was a child, I didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong, but he’s not – because I’ve grown up in a domestic violence way he’s never put me – of he’s never treated me like my own dad and he made sure I was in a stable house, I had a roof over my head, I had food on the table, he would take me and mum on holidays, he treated us well and we didn’t ever have to worry and I loved him. I’m not gonna deny that. And that’s what makes me sad, because I did start loving him at 12 years old, after the sex, and it just kept continuing until I didn’t want to do it anymore because I thought I looked at it like I was having sex with mum’s boyfriend and I - sorry. I started blaming myself, like it was my, like it was my decision that I was doing it and I was betraying my mum. So that’s why when it came over me I just couldn’t do it any more. But I’ve never not, not loved him and this is why it makes it hard. Sorry. Q Can I suggest that what you’re saying there is that you were sexually jealous of your mum because he never had sex with you. That’s the truth, isn’t it. A No, that’s not the truth. He had sex with me a lot of times and it started when I was 11 years old.141 150 SS volunteered in evidence that her mother knew she was having sex with other people because her father said that in court during the custody proceedings. Her mother knew she was sexually active from the age of 13 or 14.142 151 SS agreed that she told the police in her statement dated 5 January 2021: ‘[The accused] and I had sex so often that it felt like we were in a relationship. I had boyfriends during this time but wouldn’t do anything with them because I had [the accused]’.143 When it was put to SS that this was a lie, she said the only time she was sexually active with someone else was when she lived with her father for six months and she had a boyfriend. After she moved back to Camden Park, she was only ever sexually active with the accused.144 141 T 231, 2-38; 232, 1-7. 142 T 232. 143 T 233. 144 T 234. -- 35 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 34 152 At this point, Mr Norman KC made an application pursuant to s 34L Evidence Act (1929) SA (EA) to cross-examine SS on two pages of notes in which SS had written that she had sex with a boy called J at the Camden Park house when the family was living there. Ms Grosset did not object. I was satisfied that the evidence was of substantial probative value and would, in the circumstances, be likely materially to impair confidence in the reliability of her evidence and it was in the interests of justice to allow this evidence to be adduced. 153 SS was shown the relevant pages of the notebook which were tendered (Exhibit D16) and said that at the beginning of year 9 she brought a boy, JM, who was a year older than her, back to the house and had sex with him once on her bed in the bedroom. She told the accused the same night and he punished her and after that she was never allowed to go back home after school and had to catch the bus to the city.145 154 When SS was reminded of her earlier evidence that she did not have sex with anyone other than the accused, except when she went to live with her father, she said ‘the only person would have been this [J] person’.146 She was asked if she had forgotten [J] when she was giving evidence about who she had sex with and she gave this evidence: A Probably. It was – it’s been over – a long time ago that I had sex with this person. We were going back to when I was 13 years old, so it’s not something I’m gonna remember. Q Well, you remembered it in March 2021, on the face of it. A Yeah, when I started writing about everything, I tried to remember and put down as much as I could remember, but we’re going on five years from this case, I’m not gonna remember having sex with [J] – I remember having sex with him at the Camden Park house, yeah, and it was in February because that’s when his birthday is. That’s all I can tell you. And I know that I told [the accused] and I know he punished me and then I couldn’t – I wasn’t allowed to have keys to his Camden Park house ever again, or I was never allowed to go home by myself, I always had to catch the bus to the city and then he would take me home, because of this incident. He got very angry at me for having sex with someone else. Q You lied to this court when you said you hadn’t had sex with anyone other than [the accused], or in Darwin with your father – A I wasn’t in Darwin with my father, I was in Adelaide with my father. Q – when you were in Adelaide with your father. That was a lie, wasn’t it. A No. I can’t remember but I had sex with a boyfriend when I was up with my dad and then one-off with this [J] person. HER HONOUR 145 T 237. 146 T 238. -- 36 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 35 Q [SS] in this note it says ‘I was ground for a month’. What does that mean. A [The accused] grounded me for a month. My mum didn’t discipline us ever. She tried to, but it never – she didn’t ground me, so he was the one that grounded me and took the house keys away from me. Q So do I understand you correctly that this was the first time you’d ever been grounded. A Yes. Q Was that a significant thing for you. A Yeah, I’d never been grounded before. Q And did you understand the grounding to be connected to you telling – A Yes, it was, because I had sex with a person and then I did – obviously because I trusted and took advice from [the accused] and saw him as my best friend I did tell him and, yeah, he got very angry and upset with me about it. XXN Q So you have that memory now. A Mm-hmm. Q Are you saying that you didn’t have that memory when I – before I showed you that document you wrote in 2021. A I do have that memory, but I haven’t seen it since a while, like I haven’t – Q So you’d forgotten all about [J] and being grounded up until I showed you that. A Yes. Well, not quite, I do remember it. It’s a very – it’s a memory, and I remember, it’s not like I can’t not forget it, but it’s just something I wrote and I haven’t read it since 2021, like – Q But if you had that memory, why didn’t you say that. A ‘Cos I don’t know wat the periods of how many months in between, like, when and where and I know that it was [J]’s birthday, I know that it was in February, I know that I moved with my dad at certain times, but I don’t know if it was before or after I moved in with my dad. But I know this happened in February and I know I moved in with my dad around June/July.147 Spooning 155 SS said she told the officer who took her statement on 5 January 2021 that when the accused was spooning her, he was sexually touching her.148 SS was shown her statement and she agreed that there was no mention in the statement of the accused touching her sexually when she was describing the accused spooning her. 147 T 238, 16-38; T 239, T 240, 1-8. 148 T 241. -- 37 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 36 SS was asked whether, when she gave the statement, she remembered that the accused had touched her whilst spooning her. She gave this evidence: A Yeah, and I did tell her a lot of detail and she put in the affidavit what she thought was relevant and what wasn’t. I can’t help what her job is, like I can’t help what she decides what to put in and what not put into an affidavit. I can say like this is all correct and right, like he did spoon me and touch me up, but the fact is she – my first affidavit and the way that she treated me and how this went out was not – it wasn’t a great experience, I will say that. I – yep. I hadn’t seen these, she didn’t give me a copy of my affidavit, I only got copies years later. So when I did finally see this affidavit, I was pretty upset of how much detail she’d missed out and didn’t put into it, and then that’s why I’ve had to make amendment statements. Q Did you or didn’t you tell Officer Devlin that he touched your breasts whilst spooning. A I did tell her. Q Did you or didn’t you tell Officer Devlin that he touched your bottom whilst you were spooning. A Yes, I did tell her. Q Did you or didn’t you tell Officer Devlin that you – he touched your vagina whilst you were spooning. A Not my vagina while we were spooning, no, I didn’t tell her that. Q You told Officer Devlin that during the spooning you reference at para. 5 that he was touching your breasts and your bottom. A Yes. Q Do you say – is it your evidence she said that’s not relevant. A I gave her everything including what was in that box and pretty much that was her advice to me, is what was irrelevant and what wasn’t she put into her – like the statement. HER HONOUR Q [SS], a moment ago you said you didn’t actually see this affidavit until years later. Did I hear you correctly. A Yes, that’s correct. Q Did you sign the affidavit. A I did, but she never gave me a copy. Q I see. A So I didn’t get a copy until Lee Elliot took on my case and the before – after Kim Devlin I had two other investigators, I don’t know what their names are, I just know that they were female and they both went on maternity leave. -- 38 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 37 Q Did you sign every page of that affidavit. A Yes, I did. Q Did you read it before signing it. A Yes. XXN Q When you read it and signed it, didn’t you notice there’s no reference to your breasts and bottom. A Not when the spooning incident happened, not in this affidavit, no. as I said, I do have dyslexia understanding things and – sometimes I miss out words or explaining things.149 156 SS signed another statement on 29 January 2024. She agreed that in that statement she said: In paragraph 5 of my initial affidavit by spooning I meant cuddling on the couch in the spoon position, that is two of us lying on our sides, with [the accused] close behind me, with his arms wrapped around my body cuddling me. We would spoon frequently, like at least a couple of times a week. It happened more when we were living at Parkside than it did at Camden Park. This started before the sex ever did. I think the first time [the accused] spooned me on the couch I was 11 years old. It would mostly happen when it was just the two of us, but it did occur on occasions when my brother or sister was also in the lounge room. I don’t recall [the accused] ever spooning me in the presence of my mother. There was one occasion in 2006 when we were spooning on the couch and [the accused] put his hand underneath my top and started rubbing my bellybutton. My mother at the time had her belly pierced. [The accused] made the comment in words to the effect of “Oh, you don’t have your bellybutton pierced, it feels different. I told mum about this around the time it occurred and she told me she would speak to [the accused] about it. I don’t know if she ever did.150 157 SS agreed that there was no reference to her being touched during spooning other than on her bellybutton. She was asked why she thought that might be: A Probably because I’ve suppressed it. I know that – I know that we used to spoon on the couch and it started before we had sex, like before the sexual activity – relationship started, but the one that stuck out the most, I guess, was the bellybutton piercing one. Q What, more than having your vagina touched. A Well, yeah. It was – as I had to remind you, I did start having sex with him at 11 years old, so all of this stuff was happening and I guess I was too young to understand what was going on, I just liked the attention, I guess. I just don’t recall or remember any pacific spooning incident where he, like – he would touch my breast and butt, 149 T243, 7-38; T 244, 1-26. 150 T 246-247. -- 39 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 38 but I can’t pinpoint a date or a time or – I can just remember the bellybutton – sorry the paragraph about the bellybutton situation with the spooning. Q You tell me if I’ve got this wrong, but I asked you about why you didn’t mention the touching of your breasts, bottom or vagina to Officer Devlin. A Mm-hmm. Q And your explanation was you did mention the touching of your breasts and bottom, but you didn’t mention the touching of your vagina and she just failed to put it in, correct. A Yes, there’s some – yes. Q So, clearly, you hadn’t suppressed the memory of your breasts or your bottom being touched in 2021. A No. Q So this is admittedly January 2024. A Yep. Q You accept you’re having your attention drawn to the spooning situation, if I can call it the spooning situation. A Oh yea, yep, yep, of course. Q And the only thing you mention is having your bellybutton touched. A Yes. At this stage, that’s what I have in front of me and that’s – Q Do you think in your mind you had suppressed the touching of your bottom and breasts and your vagina. A Yeah, I have. Q On the date this was taken. A Yeah, its – mind you, this happened over a three-year period from when I was 11 years old to 14, so trying to remember every single little detail is hard to remember, yes. So I could have suppressed some of the things or the spooning incidents on the couch, yes, but I do recall him, or both of us, spooning on the couch together. Q Except you didn’t tell us about the belly button incident yesterday when giving evidence about spooning. A Well, as I said, like there was four affidavits that I’ve had to – well, if the first one was correct, well written correctly by Ms Devlin, then I wouldn’t have had to make three amendment statements. So, yeah, I can’t recall – remembering every little detail in every piece of paper. So yes, I did, sorry, forget to mention about the bellybutton incident yesterday. Q All right, thank you. let’s read para. 5. I just ask you to read that to yourself. A Yep. -- 40 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 39 Q That sentence, can you just read the sentence out loud that begins, ‘After our relationship became sexual. … A Yep. ‘After our relationship became sexual, we did continue to spoon on the couch, but it was not necessarily the casual link-up for us to have sex.151 158 SS said she used the word casual to mean sex on a regular basis.152 159 SS made a third statement on 3 April 2024. She said she had to go into more detail about what spooning meant. She agreed this was a third opportunity to talk about spooning.153 When asked if she said anything about her bottom or vagina being touched during the spooning in this statement she said yes. She was then asked to look at her statement and was then asked whether she told Detective Elliot that her vagina and bottom had been touched during the spooning: A Yes, some of the spooning, not all of the occasions, not before we had sexual intercourse, but after we had sexual intercourse. Q No, I’m talking about the spooning. A I know that, but there’s still spooning after we had sexual intercourse. So I’m saying in a broader aspect there was – after we had sexual intercourse, yes, he was touching my breasts and my vagina and my bum on the couch while we were spooning, yes, so after our relationship became very sexual. Q This is about the spooning incidents described in your original statement and para.4 of your second statement. A Yeah. Q That’s spooning on the couch in the lounge, isn’t it. A Yep, at Parkside. Q Yes. This is the third time your attention has been drawn to that issue of spooning, yes. A Yes. Q Did you or did you not tell Officer Elliot that you had your bottom and vagina touched during the spooning. A I did tell him. … Q 3rd of April 2024, eight weeks after the bellybutton mention. 151 T 247, 15-38; T 248, T 39, 1-16. 152 T 249. 153 T 250. -- 41 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 40 A Yes. It says, ‘[The accused] also played’ – ‘grabbed and played with my breasts underneath my clothing with his hands’. Whether – it depended if we – it depended on whether a family member was there at home. Q I’m asking you about being touched on your bottom and your vagina. A Yes, he has touched me there while spooning. Q The question I asked you is whether you told Officer Elliot on this occasion during the spooning incidents, spooning situation, you were touched on your bottom and your vagina. A Not that I can recall telling him in that detail, but, yeah, I have said that my buttocks and my breast and – or not my vagina in this statement, but my breasts and my buttocks were touched underneath my clothing, yes, I did tell Detective Elliott. Q When you were given this affidavit and when you read through that, did it occur to you ‘There should have been a mention of my bottom and vagina being touched during the spooning.’ A Yes, I do agree that it should have been, but it was missed out, and that could be on my behalf. Q Do you think you had suppressed it at that stage. A Most likely, yes. There’s more than spooning that I remember. I remember sexually abusing me than him just spooning me on the couch. Q I want to give you a fair opportunity to deal with this. A That’s okay. Q Had you remembered your bottom and vagina being touched during the spooning as of April 2024, or had you suppressed it. A I had suppressed it, obviously, as you can tell by my statements.154 160 SS agreed that she made a statement on 26 October 2025, four days before she gave evidence. She said she told the officer who took the statement that the accused touched her breasts, vagina and bottom during the spooning. SS agreed that in none of her statements is there any reference at any stage to her bottom or vagina being touched during spooning. When asked why in her statement dated 26 October 2025, having had her attention drawn to spooning, she did not mention that the accused touched her bottom or vagina.155 SS said: A More, cos I just remember it started with spooning on the couch and then obviously our relationship progressed pretty quickly and it became sexual, so it’s hard to talk about the spooning on the couch when you’ve suppressed so much of it and can’t remember every single detail or every single time this has happened. I can’t, yeah, I 154 T 252-253. 155 T 254-257. -- 42 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 41 just can’t really, like, answer that question in a way. Like, I should have brought it – my attention to the police about it, but no, it’s not in any of my affidavits. Q I hope I’m right in saying – it’s quite difficult on my feet – A No, that’s okay. Q – but I think you said a moment ago – were suggesting you might have told officers in Darwin, they might have notes. A So, no officers in Darwin. So everything was through SA police. I went – when I first started this journey, I guess, I tried to go to Sturt Police station and they said that they didn’t have a sexual unit place there, so I had to go to Christies Beach and made a report with a male detective and then he asked me a few questions, didn’t really go into details about the incident and then it took them – well me emailing them for nine months just to get Ms Devlin to even take a statement off me. Q That’s Ms Devlin; she had nothing to do with the affidavits in 2024 or 2025, did she. A No, that was her first statement, that was my first statement I ever made and after that when I was in Darwin I had to investi – or police officers that would call me on the phone to give me updates on my case and then they kept blaming COVID saying that’s why it’s not going anywhere, and then I decided to move back to Adelaide in 2023 and I’ve made several statements after that from coming back home.156 161 SS agreed that in her first affidavit she said: I’ve come to learn that both my brother and sister and my grandfather all thought it was wrong that he was spooning me on the couch and they told my mum this. She didn’t do anything about it.157 162 SS said she found this out when she was an adult. She first had a discussion with her brother and sister when she was in her early twenties.158 163 SS said she did tell her mother that the accused touched her bellybutton when they were both in the lounge room. Her mother was a little shocked and then she said she would talk to him about it. SS did not know what happened after that. She was asked why she told her mother that and she said it was because she was always close with her mother. She denied being bothered by having her bellybutton touched. She told her mother that it was a bit weird that he touched her bellybutton and said ‘ooh it’s not pierced’.159 164 SS told her mother about the bellybutton incident at a time proximate to it. It was before the accused touched her breasts, bottom and vagina during spooning. She then gave this evidence: 156 T 257, 24-38; T 258, 1- 21. 157 T 258, 23-27. 158 T 258. 159 T 245, 259-260. -- 43 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 42 Q So when he touched your bellybutton that was weird and you thought you should tell your mum. A Yes. Q But when he touched your breasts you didn’t think that was weird and you should tell mum. A I guess because of my domestic violence situation I’d, like, at that time I had – like, he gave me the attention and the love and the support so, like, I felt like I didn’t – I would only have him and mum. So if I told mum then our whole situation would change and, like, I was young, I didn’t know any of this was wrong or what he was doing was wrong to me. I just thought he was – he loved me and I thought that if I had sex with him or that it was like my way of showing him that I loved him. Q If you didn’t think any of it was wrong – A I didn’t. Q – why would you be worried about being separated. A I was more worried about being separated from my mum. I didn’t understand – the understanding of what sexual abuse was and having sex with an adult and what the consequences of all that are like. I was more scared that I was going to be separated from my mum, and I was more scared that my mum would blame me. Q What could she possibly have blamed you for. A Because I got bullied at school about it and everyone said that I was having sex with my mum’s boyfriend and I thought, in my own head, for many years that I’d blame myself and I look at it like I am the one that had sex with my mum’s boyfriend and I’m the one to blame. I know it wasn’t me, but I believed that my whole entire teenage life that it was – sorry, that it was my fault and if I told my mum I’d lose her and then I’d have no one. Q You thought your mother would abandon you, is that right. A Yeah, yeah, I thought that she would blame me, yeah. Q For being abused at age 11, 12. A I didn’t know, but I just thought that she would blame me and that’s what I thought in my head. That’s what I always told myself and I always looked at it like I had sex with my mum’s boyfriend. I didn’t look at the age, I didn’t know about abuse, I didn’t look at it like that. I believed what people were saying. Q You are so fearful of being separated from mum, that’s why you didn’t tell her, that’s why you didn’t tell police, remind us why you told [MUJ] in the playground. A Because she was my best friend at the time and I wanted to tell someone. I told so many kids and no-one could do anything, no one did anything. Q If I suggested to you that what you said to [MUJ] was ‘I’ve got a secret, I’m having sex with my mother’s boyfriend’; does that ring a bell. -- 44 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 43 A No, no.160 Mattress incident 165 SS said she could remember the colour and pattern of her underwear because that was the first time something sexual happened. She said she had no idea what led up to it or why or when the accused came into the room.161 He had never kissed her before or talked to her in a sexual way. She was not expecting him to come in and get on top of her and start grinding. It came as a complete surprise. Her mother was in the next room, metres away. SS said she was not frightened but confused. She let it happen and then after a bit he got off and said, ‘I can’t do this, this is wrong’ and went back to bed with her mother.162 She could not remember anything else about the mattress incident.163 166 SS agreed that the very last time anything sexual happened she said to the accused ‘I can’t do this’. She said it was just sheer coincidence that they said the same thing.164 First occasion of sexual intercourse 167 SS was not sure why the accused came into her room.165 She was not sexually excited on this occasion. She did not realise it would be painful or she would bleed afterwards. She was not turned on. He penetrated her fully and it hurt a lot.166 This penetration was for about five minutes without contraception when she was only 11 years old. She was sexually mature at the time.167 SS said it did not occur to her that the bleeding might be associated with having a penis inside her for five minutes.168 168 SS told MUJ about six months later. She thought it was a lot longer than eight weeks.169 169 SS said she could not recall being naked. The accused took off her pyjama bottoms.170 SS agreed she had never said this in any of her affidavits but denied just making it up. 171 Ongoing sexual intercourse with the accused 170 SS said the accused kept having sex with her without a condom for months. Every time they had sex it was unprotected. SS said her mother did not leave 160 T 261, 11-38; T 262, 1-26. 161 T 263. 162 T 264. 163 T 265. 164 T 265-266. 165 T 265-266. 166 T 265-266. 167 T 267. 168 T 268. 169 T 266. 170 T 292. 171 T 293. -- 45 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 44 condoms out in the house. SS said she did not even get the birds and bees talk from her mother. She did not realise until much later on that he took her virginity and that when the hymen breaks it bleeds.172 171 At this point, Mr Norman KC made another application pursuant to s 34L EA. The first application was to cross-examine SS to put to her that she had sex in the back of a car with a young man called G prior to the first occasion of sexual intercourse with the accused. If SS agreed this happened, that would undermine the credibility of her evidence that she was a virgin when she had sexual intercourse with the accused for the first time. Mr Norman KC also sought to cross- examine SS to put to her that there was a second occasion when she had sex with G on the sports benches at the school SS was attending. 172 The second application related to notes made by SS and disclosed to defence which revealed that SS had dated an 18-year-old when she was 14 years old and her mother and the accused were okay with it. She recorded ‘lucky nothing ever happened between us’. A missing person’s report from October 2010 recorded that SS disappeared with an 18-year-old called AW. Mr Norman KC wished to cross- examine SS to ask her whether the 18-year-old recorded in her notes was AW and whether it was the truth that nothing ever happened between them. 173 The third limb on the application related to the notes of SS in which she said she had no respect for herself and had sex with guys in parks, cars, train stations, public toilets. Mr Norman KC sought to cross-examine SS on whether this activity occurred during the period she was having sexual relations with the accused, in order to undermine the credibility of her evidence that she did not have sex with anyone else. 174 Each of the applications was opposed by Ms Grosset. In respect of the first limb, the primary contention was that, because there was a suggestion that SS was pressured into having sex with G in the car that would cause unnecessary distress to SS. In relation to the second limb, Ms Grosset argued that SS’s assertion ‘lucky nothing ever happened between us’ deprived the evidence of the requisite substantial probative value. Further, 2010 was outside the charged period. In relation to the third limb, Ms Grosset said it was not at all clear whether the reference to having sex with various men in various places related to the time when SS was 14 years old. Ms Grosset argued that a question directed only to establishing to which time period SS was referring in that note would offend s 34L EA because that would involve SS accepting the truth of what happened in that time period. 175 I granted permission to Mr Norman KC to cross-examine on the first limb of the application, but only in so far as asking SS whether she had sexual intercourse with G in the back of a car. I was satisfied that the evidence to be adduced in each case was of substantial probative value or likely materially to impair confidence in 172 T 268-269. -- 46 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 45 the reliability of the evidence of SS. If SS agreed she had sex with G prior to the first occasion of sexual intercourse with the accused, that would undermine the credibility of her evidence that she was a virgin when she first had sex with the accused. It was in the interests of justice to permit the accused to explore this topic as SS’s credibility was central to the prosecution case. In relation to the second limb of the application, I was satisfied that permission should be granted for the same reasons. In relation to the third limb, I concluded that simply asking SS to identify the time period to which she was referring in her notes when she recorded having sexual activity with various men in various places did not offend s 34L EA. If SS said that time period was during the currency of her sexual relationship with the accused, permission would be granted to cross-examine SS in more detail about that sexual activity, for the same reasons the first two applications were granted. Sexual activity with others 176 SS said she had sex with G in the grandstands at Unley Oval when she was 13 years old and G was 18 years old. This was after she first had sex with the accused. G drove her sister to a job interview and then drove SS to the Unley Oval where they had sex.173 SS said she was probably still having sex with the accused when she was 13 years old. However, SS said that she had sex with G when she was living with her father. SS denied ever telling the accused she had sex with G in the back of his car 174 but agreed she told the accused that she had sex with G in the grandstand. She agreed that the school had to be contacted to keep G away from her on one occasion when she was in after school care and he tried to take her home.175 177 SS said that her notes (Exhibit D18) recording ‘I always attracted older guys around me and I probably have been in other situations where I probably was being chatted up by other older men’ referred to being sexually abused by the accused, having sex with G when she was 13 years old and he was 18 years old and the accused and her mother allowing her to have an 18-year-old boyfriend when she was 14 years old. SS said nothing sexual happened with her boyfriend, D, but the accused met him and accepted him. SS bought the accused a ring and he gave it to D.176 178 SS said she dated AW when she was 15 years old in June 2009 for nine months. She ran away from home for three days to be with AW and a mutual friend. SS said the note recording ‘I had no respect for myself’ and then the reference to having sex with ‘guys’ in various places related to the time when she was a teenager, just after her 15th birthday. She started having sex with people from school and AW and guys in cars, train stations and public toilets.177 173 T 288. 174 T 289. 175 T 290. 176 T 290. 177 T 290-291. -- 47 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 46 When CAS came into the bedroom 179 SS said she had no idea that CAS was going to walk in on them. When she walked in they were both under the covers and the accused had his trousers and underpants down. When CAS came in, she was lying on her back and the accused was lying on top of her. He then rolled off her onto his back so they were both sitting up but both lying on their backs by the time CAS came into the room. They were seconds away from having sex with each other. Both of their bodies were under the covers.178 The covers were up to just above her breasts. She rolled over and grabbed a Noddy book and pretended to read it while still under the covers. They were both definitely underneath the covers. There was a doona, quilt cover and sheets.179 180 CAS just came in, did not say anything and just left.180 She was there for about a minute and then left. She looked at both of them and then left the room. CAS was 15 years old at the time. CAS stood at the door, at the end of the bed frame and then went back out.181 181 CAS never said anything to SS afterwards.182 Laundry incident and initial complaint 182 SS agreed that in her statement dated 5 January 2021 she told police that the laundry incident took place a couple of months after the first occasion of sexual intercourse.183 She said that was correct, because MUJ was staying over in the school holidays between finishing year 7 and starting year 8. She also said the first time they had sex was in March because it was around her 12th birthday.184 183 SS said she knew they had been having sex for a couple of months before she told MUJ. When MUJ came over in December/January she already knew that the accused was having sex with SS.185 SS agreed that she could have told MUJ within 8-10 weeks. When asked if she was worried about telling MUJ, she said: A Not in a way because when you have friendships you think they’re going to keep your secrets and not tell anyone. We were, like, 12-year-old girls. We didn’t know anything about – like, we were just learning about puberty let alone having sex or anything like that. Q Yes, you just use the word ‘secret’ is that fair. A Yeah. 178 T 293-294. 179 T 295. 180 T 295-296. 181 T 296. 182 T 297. 183 T 297-298. 184 T 298. 185 T 298-299. -- 48 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 47 Q I think I’ve asked you this before, but you having said that, I’ll ask again. A I did not say to [MUJ] ‘You need to keep this secret’ no, but I did tell her, but’s like when – if you explain it as like kids, yes a lot of kids, even adults use it today, ‘Can you keep this secret or can you not tell someone this?’ Q Thank you. What I asked you previously is whether you said to [MUJ] ‘I’ve got a secret, I’m having sex with my mum’s boyfriend’. A No. I told her that I thought I was pregnant because I was having sex with [the accused]. I never told her in any words that I was having sex with my mum’s boyfriend until I got to high school and got bullied about it. Q Didn’t you tell her who you were having – you thought you might be pregnant to. A I did tell her that – I didn’t go ‘I’m having sex with my mum’s boyfriend’ but she knew who [the accused] was, so I used – referenced him by his name. Q And did you talk about what you should do because you thought you were pregnant. A No. We didn’t know what to do. We were young. We didn’t even know – Q Just so I’m clear, are you saying you had no idea at the time you told [MUJ] how you got pregnant. Clearly you did. You were saying it was [the accused]. A Yes, I told her that I was having sexual intercourse with [the accused] and – yeah, and I thought I could be pregnant because we were just learning about sexual education at the time. Q Did you not have a discussion about what you should do. A No. I cannot recall the conversation that I had with [MUJ] afterwards, but it was not in the lines of ‘We should do something about this and take it to the police or tell an adult,’ no. Q I’m not suggesting that, but about the fact that you might be pregnant. A No, we didn’t have a conversation because we both didn’t know what to do at that time because of our ages. Q You didn’t have a conversation. I mean, you told her you were pregnant. A I thought I was pregnant, yeah, because I was having intercourse with someone. Q Is that all you said to [MUJ]. A Yes. That’s what I can recall. Q Did she say anything about that to you. A I can’t remember what she said back to me.186 186 T 300, 30-38; T 301; T 302, 1-7. -- 49 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 48 184 SS said that the accused took her into the laundry because he wanted to talk to her privately. He had just come back from his holiday in Queensland and he wanted to ‘concox’ her into having sex. She was on the washing machine and he was between her legs and kissing her on the lips and neck. He kept telling her ‘Oh [MUJ] won’t even notice you’re gone. She won’t even notice that we’re having sex’.187 185 SS said her mother was asleep in her bedroom at this time.188 SS agreed that the accused was never left alone with her in the house with [MUJ] or any of her other friends. Her mother was always there. SS was asked what time the laundry incident happened and she said ‘it would have been later in the night-time, like around like 6.00pm, or like more like 7.30, 8’oclock’. The sun was down. She said the sun would not have been down at 6.00pm or 7.00pm.189 Masturbating the accused whilst in bed with her mother 186 SS said there was only one time that she masturbated the accused in her mother’s bed while her mother was there. When asked if there would have been any reason for her to suggest it happened more than once if it did not, she said ‘probably because I have suppressed it’.190 187 SS agreed that in her statement dated 5 January 2021, she told police: I don’t know exactly when, but we were in the Blyth Street house and [the accused] would make me to things to him while mum was asleep next to us. One time I remember watching TV in their bedroom and my mum was asleep next to him and I gave him a hand job. I don’t remember if he ejaculated at this time.191 188 It was put to SS that she was telling police it happened more than once. She said: A Yeah, there was, there was lots of times where I shared a bed with mum and [the accused] because they had a TV in the bedroom and [the accused] would be in the middle, my mum would be on one side and I’d be on the other side and once my mum would go to sleep, I would ejaculate his penis, or like I would give him a hand job and I don’t remember him coming this time, or other times, but I do remember this one occasion where I did do it. I don’t know how many other times, I could have suppressed it, but I know it happened. HER HONOUR Q When you say ‘I know it happened’, was it the same thing or something else. A It’s the same, like I gave him a hand job while my mum was next to me, like next to us sleeping, I know that happened this one time. 187 T 302. 188 T 303. 189 T 304. 190 T 305. 191 T 306, 25-30. -- 50 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 49 Q I’m sorry, you said ‘I don’t remember how many other times’. A It could have happened more times, I could have suppressed them. I just – in my mind I know that this one sticks with me the most. Q So when you say ‘It could have happened other times’ so is the ‘it’ you masturbating him. A Yes, it’s me masturbating him.192 189 SS was reminded of her evidence regarding this occasion, including her evidence that she took his penis half out and she used moisturiser to lube his circumcised penis. She agreed she had never told police at any stage that she used moisturiser on the accused’s penis or that it was half out.193 When asked why she would not have mentioned either of these things she said: Just trying to remember everything, because it’s hard to remember something that happened over three years and in every little detail. Some of the questioning that the police officers asked they don’t – you try and explain it or try and get the information out and they only use what they want to use in there.194 190 SS then clarified that she did not recall telling the police this at all. She said she had a clear memory of the moisturiser and the accused’s penis being half out.195 Keys to the Camden Park house 191 SS disagreed with the suggestion that it was her mother who went to Camden Park on the first day when the accused got the keys and photographs were taken. SS confirmed that she would have sex with the accused at Camden Park every Sunday that he played soccer and then the accused would have a shower and take her back to Blyth Street.196 SS said: It would happen every Sunday, after his soccer matches, up until the date that me, mum and [the accused] moved into the Camden property permanently, we would have sex every Sunday at that address.197 192 SS said she watched the accused play soccer probably fifty times. She was always there at 7.00am in the morning watching him play. She went to the away games as well as home games.198 On each of those occasions, they would go back to Camden Park.199 193 It was put to SS that she only went to one game on a Sunday and that the accused took her there to make new friends. SS said that was incorrect and there 192 T 307, 1-23. 193 T 309-310. 194 T 309, 21-26. 195 T 310. 196 T 311-312. 197 T 311, 31-34. 198 T 312. 199 T 312-313. -- 51 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 50 were no other children or families there. She said she always sat there by herself watching the accused play. She saw his friend B every time the accused had a soccer match; they were on the same team.200 194 SS said she never went to the soccer with her mother, because her mother never went. SS said there might have been spectators if there was a family event but would have been a one-off occasion.201 195 SS agreed that in one of her loose-leaf notes (Exhibit D17), she wrote: The only days mum would try to be interested in us kids was when [the accused] would go to soccer practices Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.202 196 SS said the accused had soccer practices on Tuesdays and Thursdays and their mother would only have dinner with them on Tuesdays and Thursdays when the accused was at soccer practice. SS denied lying about the trips to the soccer matches. She could not recall which away matches she went to or where the soccer fields were.203 197 SS denied the suggestion that the accused hung around after soccer to socialise with his friends. She said his only friend was B and B had a wife and child who lived down south. She said on those fifty occasions he never socialised in the clubhouse that she saw. She had met B and his wife and been to their house with the accused and her mother.204 198 SS could not say over what period of time the 50 games of soccer took place.205 After refreshing her memory from her affidavit of 5 January 2021, SS said they moved into the Camden Park house in 2007 and then in that same year in June or July she moved in with her father. When they all moved into Camden Park there was no more sex after soccer because her mother was there on weekends.206 Holidays to Queensland 199 SS said the three trips to Queensland were to visit the accused’s family. It was her, her mother and the accused but her brother came on one of the trips.207 200 SS agreed there was a trip to Queensland around Christmas with her brother as well and they stayed with the accused’s family in the Glass House Mountains. SS recalled going to a festival. SS agreed that there was a Broncos Rugby League 200 T 313. 201 T 314. 202 T 314, 26-29. 203 T 315. 204 T 316. 205 T 317. 206 T 319-320. 207 T 326. -- 52 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 51 game in Brisbane and her brother went to see that because he was a big rugby fan. The sex over the chest of drawers did not happen on that occasion.208 201 It was suggested to SS that there was an occasion in June 2008 when the accused went to Queensland first by himself because his friend was getting married on 28 June 2008 and she and her mother came later. SS said it was his sister, not his friend.209 202 SS said she remembered flying to Queensland but did not remember attending a wedding. It was put to her that the accused’s best friend was BC but SS said she had never heard of him as a friend of the accused’s.210 SS said she did go to Queensland in June 2008 but that was the time they met his parents and family for the first time. It was on that trip that the sexual activity at the Dicky Beach house occurred.211 203 When SS went to Queensland and went to the festival her brother was there and he was 16 years old. The accused’s niece, E, was at the festival. There was no sexual activity between her and the accused because E and her brother were there. This was at the end of 2008.212 204 The only people in the Dicky Beach house when she and the accused had sex were her, her mother and the accused.213 SS said there were three beds in one downstairs bedroom and a double bed in another. SS said the accused did not want to mess up the bed ‘because apparently his grandma or his nanna particularly made them in a certain way, so he didn’t want to mess them up’. SS agreed she had never mentioned this to anyone else before, but that is what he told her. When asked how his grandmother made up the beds, SS said: Like how people – like how nurses make up beds in hospitals; tuck everything underneath a mattress and everything’s pristined, no crinkles in the bed sheets, ironed probably, that’s what it looks like.214 Moving in with her father 205 SS denied moving in with her father because of her misbehaviour. She said: A I went to my father ‘cos [the accused] started getting more controlling over me and me being a teenager, the fact that he told mum that I was talking to my dad and that caused tension between me and my mum. 208 T 327. 209 T 327. 210 T 328. 211 T 329. 212 T 330. 213 T 330. 214 T 331, 20-23. -- 53 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 52 Q I’m sorry [SS] that’s not true, is it. You went to your father’s because of that incident where you claim you were falsely imprisoned by your mother and the defendant, locked in the house. You know what I mean by ‘falsely imprisoned’. A Yes, and I’ve also said before that [the accused] caught me on the phone to my dad and my mum didn’t want to talk to me, so that caused tension between – or a fight between me and my mum where she got physical with me, and then the next day, I didn’t go to school and they put – they locked me in the house. I didn’t have keys to the house because I wasn’t allowed keys because of [the accused] and that situation with that boy, and my – I didn’t have a phone at the time. They took my mobile and dad came and got me with my brother and sister. HER HONOUR Q How did you contact your father to come and collect you. A He just rocked up at the house. He had done that several times throughout that – the domestic violence relationship with my mum. He’s come to several of her properties, including the Sheidow Park house. Q So you didn’t expect – you weren’t expecting him to come. A No.215 206 SS was asked why she wanted to contact her father after what he had done to her mother. She said she still loved her dad no matter what, even until this day, even though he was abusive to her every day. Her father was verbally abusive and would treat her like she was a slave. When he was on home detention she had to take him to all of his appointments and he would call her names, tell her she was stupid and get angry with her. He never hit her.216 207 SS denied that her father had encouraged her to falsely claim that the accused had raped her. SS agreed that she told police that the accused raped her from the age of 11 until she was 14. She said she knew what rape was.217 When it was put to her that rape was forcing someone to have sex against their will she said: A Yes, but I was a child, I was underage, so how can I consent to wanting to have sex with this person if I don’t even know or understand at that time when I was a child what the word ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’ meant? Q That’s then. I’m talking about when you went to the police in March 2020. You spoke to an Officer Page. You spoke to him for two hours, isn’t that right. A Yes. Q Roughly. A Yes. 215 T 332, 15-38, T 333, 1-4. 216 T 334. 217 T 334. -- 54 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 53 Q He asked you specifically ‘was it consensual?’. A Yes, and I told him I was 11 years old and then he was like ‘Oh, oh I don’t’ – and just kept writing. Why would it – I told him several times I was 11 years old and he had to turn around and ask me ‘Was it consensual?’ and I said ‘How is it consensual when I was 11 years old?’, when the age in South Australia is 17 for consensual sex. How can I consent to someone having sex with me when I was 11 years old? Q Because you’ve actually told us you did consent, haven’t you. A Later on, yes, when I wanted to do it, but as – again, I was 12 or 13 years old. HER HONOUR Q Sorry, when you say were 12 and 13 years old, was that when you consented. A I wouldn’t say I consented, I wanted it more to have sex with him, yes, but we were already having sex for a long period of time before, like the Camden Park situation when we had more freedom to have sex.218 208 SS agreed that she told Senior Constable Page that the accused raped her vaginally, orally and anally on multiple occasions. When it was put to her that this was not true she said she told Senior Constable Page all the facts and that this happened on more than one occasion.219 Discussions with her grandfather, LL 209 SS denied speaking to LL about the allegations in Christmas 2020 into New Year 2021. It was put to her that after she made her report to police she told LL that the accused regularly raped her. SS said that was incorrect and she did not see LL. She might see him once a year on his birthday or one time at Christmas, other than that she did not have a relationship with LL.220 SS went on to say: It's not that I don’t remember it, it didn’t happen, because I don’t have a relationship with [L] and I will not talk to him about this ever. To be honest, I’ve never talked to [L] about this case at all.221 Sex with the accused when SS returned to live at Camden Park 210 SS said her mother was in bed when she had sex with the accused on her first night back home after leaving her father’s house. Her mother went to bed around 7.00pm-7.30pm. She said she worked long hours as a lawyer and was always up early in the morning.222 Sex with the accused after school at Camden Park 211 SS said that her mother and the accused would drive to work in the same car, SS would meet the accused at 4.30pm and they would drive to Camden Park and 218 T 334, 33-38; T 335, 1-24. 219 T 335-336. 220 T 336. 221 T 336, 35-38. 222 T 337. -- 55 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 54 have sex and drive back into the city to pick up her mother.223 This happened four or five times a week. The accused left work at 4.30pm on the dot every time. The trip to Camden Park took 10-15 minutes.224 They had sex for 20 to 30 minutes.225 212 SS gave the following evidence: HER HONOUR Q [SS], on those occasions that you say you would catch the bus to the city and then go with [the accused] back to Camden Park, have sex and then come back to pick up your mother, was there ever a time when he was not coming out the door at 4.30. A No. Every time it was 4.30. I finished school at 3.15. I think one of the weeks it was 2.30, but most of the time I - we finished at 3.15 and then I'll have to catch a bus and by the time I got into the city from Unley High School it was around 4, 4.30.226 213 SS insisted that the accused was always there at 4.30pm.227 214 SS denied the suggestion that she caught the bus to the city and had to wait for her mother and the accused to finish work between 5.00pm and 6.00pm and they would all drive home together. She said that only happened when they moved into the house at Sheidow Park because it took 45 minutes to drive there from the city. 228 215 SS agreed that in the next page of notes following on from those in D16 (which became Exhibit D19) she wrote: I wasn't aloud to go home after school. I had to catch a Bus to the City wait around until mum and [D] finished work. Then [D] would drive me and mum home. This went on for years.229 216 SS said this only happened when they lived at Sheidow Park. She insisted that she was referring to driving home together at 6pm after they had sexual intercourse. When it was put to her that there was no reference in her notes to sexual activity in between her coming to the city and driving home with the accused and her mother, she said it happened at Camden Park.230 223 T 338. 224 T 339. 225 T 340. 226 T 342, 27-37. 227 T 343. 228 T 340. 229 T 341, 13-17. 230 T 341. -- 56 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 55 Sexual activity in the government car 217 SS said the reason the accused used the government car was because it was blocking his car that was parked in the garage.231 She had never mentioned this before.232 Valentine’s Day Card 218 SS agreed this was clearly in the accused’s handwriting and had been left on her bed for all to see.233 SS agreed she had kept it all this time. When asked why she would keep a Valentine’s Day card from the man who abused her, she said: Because I loved him. And I know it's very confusing saying that, but yeah. As I said, my dad abuses me every single day and I love him and that's confusing. But I've kept birthday cards from exes and toys and it's not just [the accused’s] stuff I've kept. There's just lots of things I've just kept over the years because I've moved my whole entire life and the only time I've ever had a stable life has been in Adelaide and I've been here for 20 years. So I've lost a lot of things over the years, so I started collecting memorabilia stuff.234 219 When asked whether her notes were full of references to how much she hated the accused, she said ‘Yes and no’. She said she loved and hated him. When asked if she hated him more than she loved him or vice-versa, she said she could not answer that question, it was very difficult for her to wrap her head around. She denied saying this to justify saying in the pretext calls that he always made her feel loved. She said she was scared during those calls and did not know what to say. 235 Pretext calls 220 SS agreed she told the accused in the pretext calls ‘you made me feel very special’. She said that was true. She also said ‘no hard feelings’. SS explained that this can be said to anyone and she loved him and hated him. She agreed that when she said these things she knew that he was going to be prosecuted but he chose to have sex with an 11-year-old. When she twice said ‘we must catch up’, she did not have in the back of her mind the thought that he could be going to prison on the basis of what she told police.236 221 SS said she did not want to catch up with him but she just said that because she had worked in customer service for three years and was used to saying stuff like that and keeping the conversation flowing. When asked when it was that she used the phrase ‘let’s catch up’ in customer service she said she never did. She agreed that she knew she was never going to catch up with him because he was going to be arrested and prosecuted. SS denied this was a performance and said 231 T 343. 232 T 344. 233 T 344. 234 T 345, 4-13. 235 T 345. 236 T 347. -- 57 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 56 she wanted to see what he would say but she knew he would not say anything to incriminate himself.237 First statement on 5 January 2021 and allegation of anal rape. 222 It was put to SS that she did not say anything to Officer Devlin about being raped in any way. She disagreed. She was then asked: Q When you spoke to Officer Devlin, I suggest you said nothing about anal sex whatsoever. Would you agree or disagree. A That’s a little bit hard to answer because the police officer that took my original report had it in there but when I talked to Detective Devlin she didn’t want to put it in there because I didn’t quite remember the details of it, I just remember it happening, so she chose not to put it in there, even though it was in my police report. Q So the question of anal sex came up and she said ‘No, we’re not putting that in it because you can’t remember it’, something like that, was it. A Not ‘I can’t remember it’, it didn’t have enough details. Q And I think you’ve also suggested that Officer Devlin told you your case was going nowhere because it was historical sex, is that right. A Yes, that’s correct. Q Can you remember what words she used. A Exactly those words.238 223 SS agreed that in January 2024 she described an incident occurring at Camden Park in the master bedroom and doing it to please him and then driving away and picking up her mother in the grey Jeep. SS initially disagreed that 8 weeks later she told police she did not have a specific memory of that physical act but she had a memory of how much pain she had in her bottom afterwards.239 Shortly afterwards in cross-examination she agreed that she did say that 8 weeks later.240 224 SS denied telling Senior Constable Page that there were multiple anal rapes. She said she told him there was one.241 225 SS said it was possible she came up with the idea of anal sex. She knew she wanted to do it to please the accused.242 When asked how she knew about the concept of anal sex she said they had had an odd childhood and had found pornographic tapes and seen what people did on those. The first time she watched 237 T 348. 238 T 349, 7-24. 239 T 349-350. 240 T 350. 241 T 350. 242 T 351. -- 58 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 57 a pornographic video was when she was 10 years old in Queensland.243 This was the only time she had watched a pornographic video. The video depicted a man and woman having sex in the park. She knew they were having sex because it was graphic and he put his penis in her vagina244. She then gave this evidence: Q You’ve just admitted you knew what sex was before you ever met [the accused], haven’t you. A Yeah, but I never had sex before I met him, no. Q And your suggestion that this was all confusing to you and you didn’t have any idea of what was going on when this is meant to have happened, it’s just an invention isn’t it. A No, that’s correct – incorrect, sorry. Q And you’re trying now to back pedal on how many occasions you’ve seen pornography because you know it makes a nonsense of the rest of your evidence. A That’s incorrect. I’ve seen pornography one time when I was like 9 or 10, they came on a videotape, it’s not like it is nowadays where you can access it on the internet, or on your phone, as easily. It’s like back in the day where it was on VCR. Q You said you learnt about sex from your siblings. A Not about it, but they – I was there with them because they put the sex tape in. I was hanging around with them.245 Being tied up by the accused 226 SS said it was the accused’s idea to tie her up. It happened several times. She was one hundred percent clear about this and had a good memory of it. She did not mention it to anyone before last week. She said she suppressed it until 26 October 2025.246 Inquiries about criminal compensation 227 SS said she called Victims of Crime to get advice before she spoke to police and they told her she would have to wait for a conviction. She has not made any claims for compensation.247 Recent contact with her father 228 SS agreed she was in touch with her father when she made the rape allegation in 2020. She said she has had to look after her father since he had been in and out of gaol from 2018. She last spoke to him the night before. He checked up on her 243 T 352. 244 T 352-353. 245 T 353, 17-35. 246 T 354-355. 247 T 355. -- 59 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 58 to see if she was okay.248 She did not talk to him about the case. He did not abuse her during this phone call.249 Miscellaneous matters 229 SS agreed that she followed the accused around like a puppy. She agreed she had an obsession with the accused when she was 11 or 12 years old. Re-examination 230 SS said she did not consider J to be a boyfriend. He was a one-off. The only boyfriend she had was DZ who she dated for a couple of months when she was living with her father. She also had sex with G while she was living with her father but she did not consider him to be a boyfriend. When she told police that she had boyfriends at the time she was having sex with the accused it was correct that she would not do anything with them because she had the accused.250 231 SS said she probably did not tell Detective Devlin about the accused touching her vagina whilst spooning because she had suppressed it because there were so many times he did it. At that time, she did not have a memory of him touching her vagina.251 However, she could recall it when she gave evidence.252 232 Giving evidence in court was the most detail she had ever provided about the sexual offences.253 233 SS said that when she gave evidence that a couple of months from when she first had sex with the accused to when [MUJ] came over she meant from March to December.254 234 When she reported the matter to Senior Constable Page and used the word rape, she did not know what the legal definition of rape in South Australia was.255 235 SS said her father was in and out of custody after being sentenced in 2018.256 236 SS said she started writing her loose notes in 2019 to help her remember. It was probably the first time she started writing it down. She made the spiral bound notes in 2021. She made those for the same purpose. She did not sign any of those notes but they were in her handwriting.257 248 T 355. 249 T 356. 250 T 358-359. 251 T 366-367. 252 T 367. 253 T 367. 254 T 377. 255 T 378. 256 T 378. 257 T 383-384. -- 60 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 59 237 SS had never been asked by police for more detail about how the accused’s grandmother made the beds.258 The police did not ask her why the accused took the government car to Moana.259 238 Between the time she first met the accused and when she moved into her father’s house, she did not speak to her father at all. She spoke to him on the day before he picked her up to take her to live with him.260 VL 239 VL was fifty-five years old when she gave evidence. She has three children, CAS born 25 December 1990, CS, born 23 March 1992 and SS born 12 April 1994.261 240 In 2005, VL was living in Oxford Street Unley and then moved to a house in Blyth Street Parkside in May 2005. Prior to that she lived with the children and her their father, NS, in Mooloolaba, Queensland. When VL first came to Adelaide, she had SS and then after some Family Court proceedings, VL travelled to Queensland to collect CS. CAS returned and lived with them at Parkside towards the end of 2005.262 Relationship with the accused 241 VL met the accused in the course of her employment at the Youth Court in June 2005. They started dating in October 2005. The accused initially stayed over at Blyth Street sporadically; he was renting at Glenelg. She stayed at his place in Glenelg and he had a bed with a metal frame.263 However, shortly after they started dating, he started staying over fairly regularly during the week and on weekends. The accused had other commitments, like soccer, but they spent most of their time together. They worked in the same building. He started staying over most nights from November/December 2005. He slept in her bed.264 Accused’s relationship with SS 242 The accused was very kind and caring to SS. He appeared to be interested in helping her. She had difficulties with reading and writing and he would quite often assist her by helping her to read. They would do things as a family, such as going to the movies, they would sometimes go to the accused’s soccer games and there would be family outings. Initially it was mostly VL and SS as CS was a teenager and had his own social life. They had meals as a family weekly, and sometimes daily. Those meals would include whoever was in the house at the time. VL said 258 T 384. 259 T 385. 260 T 387. 261 T 394. 262 T 395. 263 T 415. 264 T 396-397, -- 61 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 60 they would finish work about 4.30pm and drive home. She would cook most nights and dinner would be 5.30pm to 6.00pm.265 243 VL said there were times when the accused was in other rooms in the house with SS ‘possibly’ alone. VL said SS had a lot of trouble reading and he would sit down with her and read books, possibly in her bedroom. She did not recall any particular time when they went out together.266 Bedtime routine 244 VL said she went to bed as early as she could, probably around 8.30pm- 9.00pm on average. She had a bit of an issue with sleeping, so she would often wake up around 3.00am and sometimes go back to sleep and get up at 7.00am because she had to get everyone up and ready.267 House at Blyth Street 245 A plan drawn by VL of the house at Blyth Street was tendered: Exhibit P20. CAS was in bedroom 2 with SS and CS in bedroom 3. A plan drawn by VL of bedroom 2 was tendered: Exhibit P21. 246 Before their furniture arrived at Blyth Street, VL’s friend L loaned her a queen-sized mattress, a lounge suite, dining suite and a fridge. That furniture was returned to L when their own furniture arrived. VL said there might have been one or two mattresses in CS’s room that were her father’s and they were there for when he stayed over from time to time. Sometimes the children got them out and put them in the lounge room when they had friends staying over.268 The mattress was a single mattress.269 247 VL could not recall SS having any friends to stay over but they would come and visit. SS had a close friend from Unley Primary School, MUJ, and she would come to visit in the latter part of 2005 to 2006.270 248 SS slept in her bed in her room. There was one occasion she slept in VL’s room next to her. VL explained that on this occasion the accused was staying over: Yes, he was, and just to clarify, [CS] had friends over and I think I’d woken up and I’d found [CS]’s friend [A] in the bedroom alone with [SS], so I grabbed her out and put her in the bed with me. I didn’t see anything inappropriate, but just because she was much younger than him, I put her in the bed next to me, not in between us, but on my side of the bed. … 265 T 398-399. 266 T 416. 267 T 400. 268 T 403. 269 T 405. 270 T 404. -- 62 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 61 …I was on the left-hand side, [the accused] was on the right, I had [SS] come and sleep on the inside, or sorry, the outer side but next to me and not in between myself and [the accused] on that occasion.271 The accused’s soccer games 249 VL said that the accused played soccer during the winter football season. VL went on quite a few occasions in the early part of their relationship. Sometimes, SS would come. This was in 2005/2006 possibly to 2007. VL went less frequently as the relationship progressed. VL went to the bar in October 2008 and from then on she did not really go to soccer. She worked for Croydon’s in Market Street from June/July 2006 until she went to the bar. After going to the bar, she did not really go to soccer games because her work structure was quite different and she would be working nights and weekends.272 250 When she was working at Croydon’s she went to soccer games relatively frequently. There were spectators there, usually men and some of their partners and children. Sometimes there would be drinks at the pub afterwards. VL could not recall any occasion when SS went to the soccer without her but it was possible.273 251 When they were living at Camden Park, the accused played soccer. VL went every two or three weeks to the soccer and SS would have gone with her. VL was asked whether SS ever went on her own to watch the accused play soccer whilst living at the Camden Park address. VL said it was quite possible but she could not specifically remember any such occasion and if she did it would not have been very frequently.274 Working hours 2006-2008 252 VL said that she would generally work 9.00am-5.00pm but there were times when she would go to work on weekends. After four or five months at Croydon’s her employer became quite sick and she was managing staff as well.275 253 VL said the accused’s working hours when they were living at Camden Park were generally 9.00am-5.00pm. Sometimes he had to go on circuit.276 254 When they were living at Camden Park, SS would come to her office after school and they would travel home together.277 271 T 404, 31-37; T 405, 9-12. 272 T 405-407. 273 T 407. 274 T 420. 275 T 408. 276 T 420. 277 T 415-416. -- 63 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 62 SS going through puberty 255 VL said SS got her first period aged 11. She started going through puberty not long after they arrived in Adelaide in 2005.278 Camden Park 256 They lived at Blyth Street for about a year and then she and the accused moved into his unit at Camden Park. VL identified the furniture in P7 as the furniture in the unit when she lived there. It was her bedroom suite in the main bedroom.279 CS lived in Blyth Street from May 2005 until he left to live with his father in May 2006. CAS lived in Blyth Street from December 2005 and left in April 2006 to live with her father. They both lived in Blyth Street full time before they went to live with their father. They were at the house every night except when they stayed with friends; that was mostly CS as he had a lot of friends.280 257 VL, SS and the accused moved into Camden Park but a month or two afterwards she went to live with her father for six months. SS then returned and lived at Camden Park after that until they moved to Sheidow Park in October 2008. She and the accused bought that house in October 2008.281 258 When she and SS were living with the accused at Camden Park, he seemed to be on good terms with SS.282 259 SS would come to her office after school and they would travel to Camden Park together. There may have been times when the accused took SS out; he took her to the Lobethal Lights and present shopping for Mother’s Day.283 Morning after pill 260 A couple of weeks after SS moved back to Camden Park after living with her father, she told VL that she had sex with a young boy at school and had not used protection. She asked VL to get her the morning after pill. VL went with SS to the chemist at the Kurralta Park shopping centre and VL bought the morning after pill.284 Trips to Queensland 261 VL went to Queensland with the accused three or four times. SS came with them on at least two, possibly three of those occasions. The first occasion was the wedding of a friend of the accused. His name was B. They were living at Camden Park. It was a short trip.285 278 T 408. 279 T 419. 280 T 409. 281 T 410. 282 T 410. 283 T 415-416. 284 T 411. 285 T 421. -- 64 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 63 262 The second occasion was the 2008/2009 Christmas period. They went for a good couple of weeks. They mainly stayed at the accused’s grandparents’ house in Dicky Beach. They had Christmas day there. CS flew into Brisbane and they may have picked him up.286 VL said the accused’s niece, E, her mother and partner were downstairs in another bedroom. SS and E were sleeping downstairs and she and the accused slept upstairs.287 263 VL could not recall any other Queensland trip when SS was there. When she and the accused travelled to Queensland without SS, her mother or her friend L would look after the children.288 264 VL was shown P8 and recognised the photographs as being of the house at Dicky Beach. Vehicles driven by the accused 265 The accused had a two-door Lancer which he sold and bought a Jeep Cherokee. He then bought a Mitsubishi Triton. VL had a red Toyota Echo.289 266 From time to time the accused had a work car. She had been with him to pick them up from Flinders Street. She recalled the car being a white sedan.290 Sexual relations with the accused 267 VL said she had sexual intercourse with the accused. He was circumcised. She did not recall using condoms because she was pretty sure she was on the pill during the relationship.291 Cross-examination. Relationship with NS 268 VL said NS was a promising boxer when he was young but the drugs ruined him. He worked in construction and security.292 She had seen him taking people ‘round the back and beating them up.293 269 NS’s behaviour got worse over a period of time and he became more violent, more controlling, more possessive of VL and jealous of anyone showing her attention. He smoked a lot of cannabis. He served two sentences for drug trafficking.294 NS asked her to marry him when she had graduated from university 286 T 422. 287 T 423. 288 T 423. 289 T 424. 290 T 425. 291 T 425. 292 T 425. 293 T 426. 294 T 426. -- 65 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 64 with a Bachelor of Laws. She predominantly worked as a family lawyer from 2006. Prior to that she did some care and protection and criminal law.295 270 The violence escalated to the point where NS was beating her. This happened countless times but not every day. There were some pretty awful occasions where she sustained quite significant injuries. The children witnessed some of this. NS raped her.296 When asked how many times NS raped her, VL said, ‘If I put it to you that there is no such thing as saying ‘No’ to [NS] that was about the standard that we were at’. There was one occasion when NS raped her and SS was in the bed. He also pursued her with an axe when they were living in Darwin and she had to lock herself in the bedroom. CS ran down the road to the telephone box and called the police.297 271 VL said it took her two years and living in a number of states and about five restraining orders to finally get him to leave her alone. NS followed her when she moved from Darwin to Mildura and then to Mooloolaba. VL had the children full time until they got to Queensland.298 VL went to a refuge and told NS it was over. Her father came to Queensland to help. NS started harassing her at work. VL was having trouble with CAS at that stage and she was wagging school. VL sent CAS to Darwin to live wither her grandmother and VL obtained a restraining order against NS. NS took CS but SS stayed with her and the police helped them to get to Brisbane to stay overnight and L paid for her tickets to get to Adelaide.299 272 Restraining orders did not make any difference to NS.300 NS spent all the money she earned.301 273 VL had to return to Brisbane for proceedings in the Family Court and all the children were required to be there. VL took SS with her.302 NS was walking up and down outside court so they could not get out. The Federal Police took them to the basement and drove them from their secure car park up the ramp and the accused threw himself at the car.303 274 After this incident, NS kept contacting VL daily but he did not come to Adelaide until she started a relationship with the accused.304 NS reacted terribly to learning of her relationship. NS came to her work, would sit outside the Youth Court, follow her to the markets and drive around the neighbourhood. He tried to 295 T 427. 296 T 427. 297 T 428. 298 T 428. 299 T 429. 300 T 429. 301 T 431. 302 T 430. 303 T 431. 304 T 431. -- 66 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 65 kidnap SS against her will. He threatened the accused on at least one or two occasions.305 275 When NS had the children in his care his aim was to have the children make her go back to him. When CAS was in Darwin and 13 years old he flew her back to Adelaide with a paid for phone with strict instructions to keep VL under surveillance.306 NS kept trying to get custody of the children.307 276 In one of the custody proceedings, her father, LL, filed an affidavit suggesting that the accused had touched SS in an inappropriate tactile manner. VL was present during that incident. Her father was very heightened and was walking up and down the hallway. He was having an argument with his partner, K, on the phone and was very loud. She and SS were very uncomfortable with LL’s behaviour at that time. The accused was comforting SS because of what LL was doing. After this she stopped seeing her father or allowing him to come to the house.308 277 VL stayed at the accused’s apartment in Glenelg to get away from NS.309 Accused’s relationship with SS 278 VL never noticed anything sexual between the accused and SS. He appeared to be very supportive of her and at first, they appeared to get on very well.310 VL would not allow the accused to discipline her children, but he was a much more accommodating male than they had experienced. However, she did her best to remain vigilant. She was more protective of SS than the other children because she had her own vulnerabilities from childhood. VL said, ‘So if it’s any consolation, I feel like I failed as a parent’.311 SS had nightmares and would wake up with blood on her pillow. The trauma had a lifelong impact on her daughters and, to some degree, herself.312 Camden Park 279 VL was shown photographs and recognised them as being of the Camden Park house: Exhibit D22. She identified the accused in them and said the other man might be the real estate agent.313 End of relationship with accused 280 The relationship with the accused ended in October 2010. They stayed living together for about four weeks but were still communicating into early 2011 and 305 T 432. 306 T 432. 307 T 433. 308 T 433-434. 309 T 434. 310 T 434. 311 T 436. 312 T 436. 313 T 436-437. -- 67 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 66 VL thought he came to Christmas in 2010. It was an amicable separation. The property settlement was resolved by mediation and VL is still living in the Sheidow Park home. Wedding in Queensland 281 The friend at whose wedding they attended was BC and the accused was his best man.314 MUJ 282 MUJ was 30 years old when she gave evidence. Schooling and friendship with SS 283 MUJ went to Unley Primary School from 2000-2006. She was in year 7 in 2006. In that year, she was best friends with SS. They would see each other outside school, mostly at SS’s house. Sometimes they would go to MUJ’s father’s house.315 284 MUJ went to SS’s home almost every weekend, usually after school on a Friday and would sleepover on one or sometimes two nights. She could not remember where she slept when she stayed over. When she was there, the accused, and sometimes CS and CAS were there. She could not remember VL being there frequently. She recalled VL driving them around. The accused was there most times she was there.316 Initial complaint 285 She and SS were at school one day and SS told her she needed to tell her a secret so they went to campus three where there was usually no one about: …and we sat down on a bench on that campus and she told me – I can’t remember her exact words, but along the lines, ‘I’m having sex with my mum’s boyfriend’ and I believe that she used his name but I can’t remember it.317 286 The conversation was definitely in year 7. When asked how SS appeared when she was telling MUJ this, she said: I believe I – the way that I felt at the time was that she was sort of disclosing – like, not disclosing. The way that I felt at the time was that she was sharing a secret with me in kind of – felt a bit uncomfortable I would say. Like it felt a bit like maybe I was giggling and maybe she was a little bit, but I can’t exactly recall.318 Visits to house after initial complaint 287 MUJ could recall two particular occasions when she went to SS’s house after SS told her she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend. On the first occasion 314 T 438. 315 T 439-440. 316 T 440. 317 T 441, 8-12. 318 T 441, 32-38. -- 68 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 67 she said the information SS had given her was in her head and she, SS and the accused were sitting on the couch. SS was in her school uniform. SS was sitting on the arm of the couch and the accused was tickling her, ‘sort of pulling her onto him' and tickling on her body. She distinctly remembered his hands on her thighs because she was wearing a school skort and MUJ felt like ‘Oh I know what’s going on’. She could not recall where on her thighs he was touching. She thought to herself that they were flirting.319 288 On the second occasion, MUJ was not sure who was in the house but the accused was encouraging SS to go to another room in the house, a back room. They shut the door and were in there for a while. MUJ felt uncomfortable because she felt like she knew what was happening because of what SS had told her. MUJ was left in one of the bedrooms.320 MUJ could not remember anything that was happening before this, she thought they were playing with the cats. She felt like it was only the three of them in the house. She recalled feeling a bit bored but she was not sure how long they were gone. She did not recall SS coming back. She could not remember seeing the accused again.321 She could not remember what time of year it was.322 289 MUJ identified herself as in the bottom row of the series of photographs in P3. Cross-examination Initial complaint 290 MUJ said she could not recall the exact words SS used in the playground. When it was put to her that they were both giggling, she said: A Like I said earlier, I can’t quite remember. I felt like that’s what – how I responded, but I can’t remember exactly how both of us responded. Q She – she didn’t exhibit any distress, did she, or anything like that. A I think I have a really hard time with this question because I am not sure if my feelings about the situation are sort of taking over my memories of it, but I can’t remember.323 Subsequent occasions when MUJ was with accused and SS 291 MUJ agreed she was a regular visitor to the home and that it felt like the accused was always there. In all that time there was once some tickling she saw and another time they appeared to go into another room for reasons she did not know. Both of these things occurred after SS had told her that she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend. MUJ thought that this came into play when she was 319 T 442-443. 320 T 443. 321 T 444. 322 T 445. 323 T 446, 23-31. -- 69 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 68 thinking about what was going on in those situations. She agreed that having been told that SS was having sex with the accused, seeing her interact with him was always going to make her feel a little uncomfortable. The tickling was on the body, right in front of her. No one was trying to hide it.324 LL 292 LL has six children, one of whom was VL. He said after VL was ‘rescued’ from Queensland she lived with him for a while in Unley. He was sharing a house with LB. VL, SS, CAS and CS lived with them until VL found a place to live.325 293 VL moved into the Blyth Street home with the children. LL met the accused at the house but he could not recall when that was. LL visited every week or two for a year or two.326 294 LL was asked if he ever saw SS and the accused interact with each other and he gave this evidence: A What I saw is what I’ve given in my deposition. As much as anything, it was an incongruous scene, if I can describe it that way, in the sense that [the accused] was a younger man, seemingly making a show of being protective of [SS], sitting near her on the couch, it was a red couch, I remember that and I remember him, I’m sure, put his arm in a protective sort of way around her shoulder and then I recall going outside a little bit later, I think on that same day, and [the accused] showing off his acrobatic abilities by walking around on his hands in front of everybody, to impress whom, I’m not sure. Q Apart from this occasion that you’ve spoken about with [the accused] and [SS] do you recall any other occasions. A No. If – quite frankly, if I’d seen more than I saw, and this is not an opinion, it is just that it didn’t cause any alarms to go off in my system, on my radar, if you like, and I’m an observer of humankind as a journalist and I didn’t see anything untoward. Odd, but not untoward.327 Cross-examination 295 LL was asked to describe NS and he said: A I wouldn’t even describe him as being a man. Q Please go on, sir. A In the accepted sense of what is a man, I wouldn’t describe [NS] as being a man, more an animal. Do you really want to know? That’s what I think. Q Have you described him previously as capable of murder. 324 T 446-447. 325 T 449. 326 T 450-451. 327 T 451, 6-25. -- 70 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 69 A Absolutely.328 296 LL said he received a phone call from NS in which he learnt about the allegations. NS told him that SS had been sexually assaulted by the accused. LL was reminded of what he told police NS had said, namely ‘[the accused] had been raping [SS]’ and he said that may have been the case, he could not recall specifically.329 297 When NS called him, it was a bit of a surprise and he said ‘it was almost triumphal’. LL said ‘if you heard the way the man spoke you would understand why I’m saying that’. LL agreed NS told him the police were coming to see him.330 298 LL agreed that in his statement dated 19 July 2021, he told police: About four or five months ago, I received a phone call from a [NS]. He told me that the police were coming to see me because [the accused] had been raping [SS] between the ages of 11 and 14. [NS] is hard to believe, but because this was very specific, I believed it. I didn’t see any point in telling him otherwise. I spoke to [SS] in person over Christmas/New Year 2021. When we spoke about it in a bit more detail, she told me that [the accused] had regularly raped her between the ages of 11 and 14. He told her that if she ever told anyone about it, he would deny it.331 299 LL agreed that at the time he made the statement to police that was what he recalled of the two conversations.332 His memory was better closer to the time. LL’s understanding of rape was sex against the will of the recipient.333 300 LL sent an email to police the week he gave evidence asking them to consider an alternative scenario, that NS was manipulating his daughter out of vengeance against the accused as a form of revenge because this man was seeing his woman and children and taking his place. He was concerned that NS was going to cunningly manipulate SS.334 Re-examination 301 LL said he had no evidence to support the alternative scenario he asked police to consider.335 CAS 302 CAS was 34 when she gave evidence. 328 T 452, 17-23. 329 T 452-453. 330 T 453. 331 T 454-455. 332 T 455. 333 T 456. 334 T 457. 335 T 458. -- 71 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 70 303 Her sister is SS and brother CS, her mother VL and father NS.336 Living arrangements in Adelaide 304 CAS moved to Adelaide on 17 December 2005. She moved into a house on Blyth Street, Parkside with her mother, sister and brother. She lived there for 15 months and moved out in April 2007. She lived there during that entire time. The accused moved in around January 2006. That was when she first met him. He had his own place at Glenelg but was staying at their house most of the time. Her mother, the accused SS and CS moved into the accused’s place for a while in March 2006.337 She stayed in the Blyth Street home after they moved out.338 305 When they were all living at Blyth Street, she tried to stay out of the house as much as possible. For the first few months she was there fifty percent of the time but was out a least a few nights a week. She said the rest of her family moved back into Blyth Street in August 2006 and stayed there until April 2007 when CAS moved out. After they returned she spent a couple of nights a week there. 339 306 CAS shared a room with SS and CS had his own room. The accused slept in her mother’s bedroom. A floor plan drawn by CAS was tendered: Exhibit P23.340 Observations of the accused and SS 307 CAS said there were a couple of occasions when she saw the accused alone with SS. There were a few occasions when the accused and SS were cuddling together. He was lying on the couch on his side and SS was lying on her side in front of him. She was pushed back into the front of the accused.341 She said they were probably watching television but she could not see it as she walked past. She only made these observations as she went past the lounge room. She did not think there was a door to that room. The lounge room was generally used for watching television.342 308 On another occasion, CAS opened the door and walked into the bedroom and saw them sitting next to each other in the corner of her bed, closest to the bed head. The accused was holding one of SS’s homework books. She said they were startled and she left the room shortly afterwards. She could not recall seeing their legs or whether they were on top of or under the covers. It was daytime but she was not sure if it was during the week or on a weekend. This happened after they had moved back into the Blyth Street home.343 336 T 465. 337 T 466. 338 T 467. 339 T 467. 340 T 468. 341 T 469. 342 T 470. 343 T 471. -- 72 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 71 309 She thought she had come home to get something and that is why she was in the bedroom but she could not remember exactly. She thought her mother was home but she was not sure.344 310 She thought it was a homework book because it was short and thin like SS’s reading books at the time.345 SS moving in with her father 311 CAS moved in with her boyfriend and his parents in April 2007 until around February 2008. She then lived with her father and brother in 2008 when she was 17 years old.346 312 SS came to live with them at her father’s possibly towards the end of 2008. She was not there very long, maybe less than two months. SS called her father and said she had been locked in the accused’s house by their mother and the accused and she wanted to leave. She, her father and brother went to the unit in Camden Park and helped her get out through a window.347 Cross-examination Family and living arrangements 313 CAS agreed she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She ascribed that to the treatment she had as a child and an adult from both of her parents. There is a restraining order out against her father. She had given evidence in criminal proceedings against him for assaulting a police officer. She needed a restraining order because her father assaulted her on Anzac Day 2021.348 314 CAS said her father did not pursue anyone until he found out that her mother was in a relationship with the accused in March 2006. She was aware that the accused, her mother and SS tried to get away from NS on a number of occasions and that threats were made by her father against her mother. She recorded a phone call in which her father threatened to kill her mother.349 315 In December 2005, CAS was living in Darwin with her grandmother and her father put her on a flight to Adelaide in the middle of the night. She was 14 years old.350 316 CAS was aware of one incident when her father approached the accused in a car park and threatened him.351 344 T 472. 345 T 472. 346 T 472. 347 T 473. 348 T 473-474. 349 T 474-475. 350 T 475-476. 351 T 476-477. -- 73 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 72 317 There were legal proceedings taken out by her father to try to get custody of SS and CS.352 Impression of the accused 318 When she first met the accused, he seemed nice and was polite and quite reserved.353 319 When she was living at Blyth Street no one told her when she could come and go. There were occasions after her mother came back in August 2006 when she could not return to the house because she had been kicked out. Prior to that she could walk into the house at any time and into the bedroom. She and CS occasionally had friends over to stay.354 320 In all the time she lived at Blyth Street she never saw any sexual contact between SS and the accused. CAS denied that the accused seemed like the father SS never had. She agreed that she wrote in her statement dated 25 October 2023, ‘[SS] looked up to [the accused]. He was like the father she never had. He was close to her and affectionate with her, something her biological dad never was’. She said that is how she thought SS viewed the accused, it was not how she viewed him.355 It was her opinion that the accused was close and affectionate to SS, something her biological father was not; he ignored her a lot of the time.356 The lounge and bedroom incidents 321 On the occasions she walked past the lounge and saw the accused and SS cuddling, she looked in but just kept walking. She could not give any more detail about these occasions.357 322 When she walked into the bedroom, she did not recall seeing naked legs and if she had seen his naked legs she might possibly have recalled this.358 She could not recall if they were under or over the covers. If they had been, that might possibly have stuck in her mind. She thought it was weird; she noticed they were startled.359 When asked why it was weird if they were sitting on the bed with the accused holding a book she said: Because the door was closed, I wasn’t expecting them to be in the room and the way they looked at me when I entered the room, I found that strange.360 352 T 477. 353 T 477. 354 T 477-478. 355 T 478. 356 T 479. 357 T 479. 358 T 479. 359 T 480. 360 T 480, 9-11. -- 74 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 73 323 CAS agreed that in her statement dated 26 October 2025 she said they were on the bed. She then said, ‘They were on the bed, I’m just not sure whether they were covered with a blanket or not’.361 324 CAS agreed that in paragraph 15 of her statement given in 2023, she said this: I do recall one time, when I returned to the bedroom I shared with [SS], I found [SS] and [the accused] alone in the room together. The door was closed. This was not normal. When I opened it up, they both appeared startled. They were sitting on [SS]’s bed together. They were clothed. I don’t recall whether they were under the covers or on top of the bed. My memory is [the accused] was either reading to [SS] or helping her with her homework.362 325 CAS agreed that in her statement dated 26 October 2025, she said this: As per paragraph 15, I had never seen [the accused] or [SS] alone together in a room with the door closed. This one time my bedroom door was closed. I just opened it and walked in and saw [SS] and [the accused] on [SS]’s bed. They both looked startled. [The accused] was holding a book.363 326 CAS agreed that in that affidavit she said nothing about whether they were under covers or anything about a blanket. She agreed she had never positively asserted that they were under covers. She said she potentially may have remembered if they had been under the covers but when they lay on the couch together there was sometimes a blanket. The fact that they were always so close and affectionate was odd to her, but she could not say whether, if they were under a blanket in the bedroom sitting up on the bed, that would have been alarming to her at the time.364 327 CAS said when she referred to using a blanket on the couch, she meant one of the bed covers.365 328 CAS said she had not spoken to her sister in over two years.366 329 CAS agreed that there was no door to the lounge room and nothing to impede her vision of them on the sofa. When she saw the accused and SS on the couch the only parts of their body that were touching were SS’s back against the accused’s front. They were facing the television.367 330 She found it strange having her mother’s partner, who was no relation to SS, being that physically affectionate in such a short period of time. CAS said she 361 T 481, 19-20. 362 T 482, 1-10. 363 T 482, 16-21. 364 T 482. 365 T 483. 366 T 483. 367 T 483-484. -- 75 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 74 described the accused as a father-figure because that is what her mother justified it with, when CAS brought it up with her. She said she complained to her mother.368 331 When she was asked what she was complaining about, bearing in mind she had seen nothing sexual, she said: A So there were other occasions where [SS] would sometimes sit on [the accused’s] lap when we were at the kitchen table as well. I just found their relationship and their closeness odd. HER HONOUR Q [CAS] as I understand your evidence, it was because the affection had developed over a short period of time, is that what you found odd. A That’s part of it. Also he was not – there was no relation to him, he was just mum’s boyfriend. Q I see, so because he wasn’t related. A He wasn’t family. Q He wasn’t family. A Yes. Q That’s part of the reason you thought it was odd. A Yes, yeah. Q For someone in your mother’s, as in your mother’s partner to be affectionate with somebody who was not his child. A Yes. Q So if he had been affectionate like that to [CS]. A No. Q No, no, if he had been, would you have formed the same view – A Yeah I would have – Q -that is that that would be odd. A – thought that was odd, yes. Q Because of his status as your mother’s boyfriend. A Yeah. We didn’t know him long, just mum’s boyfriend.369 368 T 484. 369 T 484, 38; T 485, 1-28. -- 76 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 75 332 Up until the accused moved in, she was not aware of her mother having any other relationships after leaving their father. This was the first time someone had moved in with her and lived with their family.370 SS coming to live with her father and then returning home 333 SS told them that she had been assaulted by her mother in the bathroom and she was not allowed to leave the house. SS returned to live with the accused and her mother because something happened and SS was upset. She had an altercation with their father.371 Re-examination 334 CAS could not say how often the accused and SS used a blanket when they were cuddling in the lounge room. It was at least once. She said it would have been cold and the heating in the house was not very good. The blanket covered their bodies from chest down; SS was lying at his chest level.372 Senior Constable James Henderson Page 335 On 18 March 2020, SC Page was working in the front station of the Christies Beach Police Station. He spoke to SS. He did not take a statement and did not take notes but explained that his original notes were what was put on the computer system. He made notes in the system as he was having the conversation with SS.373 Cross-examination 336 SC Page agreed that it was very important to record accurately what a complainant says when they come to the police for the first time. He said there is a difference between the offence of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse. The issue of whether sexual offences are consensual or not is a crucial one.374 337 SC Page agreed he took SS to a quiet room in order to give her time to give her account to him in private. He could not recall how long he spent with her.375 338 SC Page was shown a document entitled ‘Custom Occurrence Report’. He said it was not in the format he was used to. He said the content was what he recorded.376 That content was: Numerous historical rapes over three years (2006-2009). Reporting person states that between the ages of 12 to 15 she was made to have full sexual intercourse with known suspect. It was her mother’s boyfriend at the time.377 370 T 486. 371 T 486. 372 T 486-487. 373 T 489. 374 T 489. 375 T 490. 376 T 490-491. 377 T 490, 34-38. -- 77 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 76 339 SC Page said the ‘narrative’ section of the occurrence report was a summary of what he was told by SS. He entered it at 6.07pm on 18 March 2020.378 That summary was as follows: Historical rape, 10 plus years ago, between stated times over three-year period. Victim states that the suspect [the accused] mother’s partner at the time, lived with the victim and her mother. Victim states that during this time period she was subject to full intercourse rape and anal rape by the suspect. Also she was made to conduct oral sex on the suspect. The victim states that there was never any witnesses to the offences and the rapes took place at a few different addresses over the years and even interstate in Queensland. The victim is now 26 years and wishes to report this.379 340 SC Page said ‘full intercourse rape’ meant vaginal rape. He understood that the reference to being made to conduct oral sex on the suspect was oral rape.380 Re-examination 341 SC Page said the narrative summary was his interpretation of what she told him. The details in there were what she told him. He was not making a determination of what, if any, charges were to be laid.381 342 SC Page was asked to read the longer entry in the occurrence report. That was as follows: Senior Constable 72534 Page SCCU. Victim is 26 years old and has attended Christies Beach Police Station today, 18th of the 3rd ’20 to report historical rape to her by her mother ex-partner. These rapes took place between 2006 to 2009 when the victim was between the ages of 11 and 14. The suspect [AF] lived with the victim and her mother [VL] during the period when the offences took place and they separated in September 2010. The victim states that she was raped by [F] by vagina-penis penetration, anus-penis penetration, made to conduct oral sex on [F]. These all happened on various occasions during the stated time period. The victim states that during this time period where she was regularly raped by [F] they moved a few times. The other known addresses where the victim states she was raped are: 18 Clifton Street Camden Park, about 2007, 20 Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park, about 2009. The victim also states she was raped by [F] whilst visiting [F]’s parents and grandparents in Queensland. The victim states that the suspect works as a clerk for the Youth/Magistrate Court somewhere in Adelaide Metro area. Last address for suspect through police interactions linked to the occurrence but SAPD show the suspect residing at [address redacted]. Nil risk assessment completed as per advice from Southern District Family Violence vixen and due to being a 10 year plus historical rape.382 343 SC Page considered that what was being disclosed to him were offences and that SS had been unlawfully raped.383 378 T 491. 379 T 492, 11-26. 380 T 493. 381 T 493. 382 T 495, 1-29. 383 T 496. -- 78 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 77 Detective Senior Constable First Class Kimberley Jade Devlin 344 In May 2020, Detective Devlin was stationed at the Christies Beach Police Station in the Southern District Child and Family Violence Section. Previously, she had been assigned the investigating officer in this matter. She took a statement from SS between May 2020 and January 2021. She did not take any notes whilst she was the investigating officer. Once the statement from SS was completed, the matter was transferred to Eastern District Criminal Intelligence Branch.384 Cross-examination 345 Detective Devlin had specific training in dealing with sexual abuse complainants. She said that if SS had alleged that she had been raped, that would have been recorded in her statement. If SS had said she had had anal sex that would have been in her statement. If SS had told her that whilst spooning or cuddling on the sofa, the accused had touched her breasts and bottom that would have been in her statement.385 346 Detective Devlin denied saying to SS words to the effect, ‘this is a historical rape, it’s going nowhere’. Although she could not exactly recall the conversation she had with SS, that is not something she would say to a complainant because it would be very inappropriate.386 Detective Brevet Sergeant Lee Elliot 347 Detective Elliot was assigned the role of investigating officer in July/August 2022. Three investigators had been assigned to the case before him. He received approval to conduct a pretext conversation between SS and the accused.387 Two calls were facilitated and recorded and transcripts compiled.388 348 On 14 July 2023, Detective Elliot and other officers attended the accused’s home address and searched it. Photographs taken during the search were tendered: Exhibit P24 and P25.389 349 Detective Elliott made inquiries with the REA Group regarding photographs taken from a 2008 listing and sale of unit 1/18 Clifton Street, Camden Park. Detective Elliott identified P7 as the photographs he was provided by REA Group.390 350 Detective Elliot obtained business records from the Courts Administration Authority regarding the accused’s use of pool fleet cars. He obtained an authorisation slip regarding the accused’s use of a vehicle dated 30 January 2009 and 6 February 2009. That was tendered as a business record: Exhibit P 26. He 384 T 499. 385 T 500. 386 T 500-501. 387 T 507. 388 T 508. 389 T 508-509. 390 T 509. -- 79 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 78 also obtained a certified extract from the Motor Vehicles Register for the motor vehicle with South Australian Registration XKH 834 dated 6 February 2009: Exhibit P27. There was an identical one for 30 January 2009.391 CS Living arrangements 351 In February/March 2005, CS was living in Blyth Street, Parkside with his mother and little sister SS. His older sister moved in about twelve months later. Before that he lived in Unley with a lady named L. He had moved from Queensland when he was about 12 years old.392 352 The accused also lived at Blyth Street. He could not recall when he first met the accused but it was within a year of moving there.393 The accused had another property but after a short period of dating he was spending more time at their house than his own. He slept in his mother’s bedroom.394 353 CS moved out mid to late 2007. There was a period whilst CS was still living with them, when SS, CAS and his mother stayed at the accused’s house. That was for three to six months. His mother would come back now and then to pick up something. When they all lived together, CS was in the house during the week but on weekends he would stay at friends. CAS was not there very often; she had friends and a partner and went out as much as she could.395 Interactions between accused and SS 354 CS said that when SS and the accused watched a movie on the couch, he would spoon her while they were lying on the couch under a blanket.396 CS described this as the accused lying with his back against the back of the couch and SS would be lying with her back against the front of him also facing the television. He was in the room at the time, on the other couch and his mother or sister were also present. It was night time and the television was on. The blanket covered them shoulder to toe. He did not see anything else that was inappropriate.397 CS said this was a common thing.398 SS moving in with father 355 CS said that after he moved in with his father, CAS moved in later on and then SS lived there in late 2008 for six months.399 391 T 512. 392 T 515-516. 393 T 516. 394 T 517. 395 T 518. 396 T 518. 397 T 518-519. 398 T 520. 399 T 520. -- 80 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 79 Cross-examination 356 CS initially provided an affidavit over the telephone to Detective Elliot in November 2022 and he signed in on 20 October 2025. He then signed another statement a few days later.400 357 CS was asked whether there were significant problems between his mother and father when he was growing up and he replied, ‘yeah, to say the least’. His father had been to gaol twice for drug trafficking and had been convicted of assaulting a police officer. He was not aware of his father raping his mother.401 358 In November 2022, CS had nothing to do with his father and still has nothing to do with him.402 SS and the accused – spooning 359 CS disagreed that cuddling was the same as spooning. He said that during spooning the accused’s genitals would be pushed up against SS’s bottom and cuddling was front-on. He agreed that he was not suggesting for a moment that he ever saw the accused’s genitals pressed up against his sister’s bottom. He also agreed that he told police that he never saw any inappropriate touching, ‘aside from the spooning’.403 360 CS said this happened approximately once a week. It was put to him that he told police ‘It wasn’t like they did this all the time or even frequently’ and he said if that is what he told police, he believed frequently would mean daily and maybe that was what he was saying in his affidavit. He agreed that the spooning was not secret or hidden.404 Trip to Queensland 361 CS went to Brisbane with the SS, his mother and the accused. He went to the Broncos Leagues Club but did not watch them play.405 Agreed facts 362 The following facts were agreed in Exhibit P 28: Birthdates: 1. [SS] was born on 12 April 1994. 2. [The accused] was born on 4 March 1982. 400 T 521 401 T 521. 402 T 522. 403 T 522. 404 T 522-523. 405 T 523. -- 81 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 80 21 Blyth Street Parkside: 3. A residential bond check on 21 Blyth Street Parkside shows a residential tenancy bond was lodged by the tenant, [VL] commencing from 7 May 2005 and was refunded on 6 June 2007. 1/18 Clifton Street, Camden Park: 4. Land Services SA records show [the accused] was the registered owner of 1/18 Clifton Street, Camden Park from 28 August 2006 to 10 November 2008. 20 Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park: 5. Land Services SA records show [the accused] and [VL] were the registered owners of 20 Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park from 10 December 2008 to 30 July 2013. Motor Vehicle Records: 6. Motor Vehicle Registrar checks show that on 13 March 2007 [the accused] acquired a silver Jeep Tourer (2006) which was sold on 28 April 2008. Soccer: 7. Records held by the South Australian Amateur Soccer League Incorporated (SAASL) indicate [the accused] was a registered player with the Plympton Bulldogs Soccer Club in the Sunday Division 3A League. 8. Records indicate that [the accused] played for this club across the 2005-2007 and the 2009 season. Dates: 9. 30 January 2009 was a Friday. 10. 6 February 2009 was a Friday. Defence case 363 The accused elected to give evidence in his defence. What follows is a summary of that evidence. Background 364 The accused was 43 years old when he gave evidence. He has one sister and his parents, D and J, are still alive. He grew up in Queensland and moved to South Australia in mid-2001. He obtained employment as a Magistrate’s clerk in August 2001. He worked as a Magistrate’s clerk until his arrest. He was suspended from his employment pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. He obtained other employment following his suspension.406 406 T 527-528. -- 82 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 81 365 The accused has two sons and no previous convictions whatsoever. He denied ever having sexual intercourse with SS or touching her sexually in any way.407 Relationship with VL 366 The accused first met VL in the middle of 2005 at the Adelaide Youth Court where he was working.408 At that time he was living in a unit at Glenelg East. He and VL started dating in October 2005. They would have lunch occasionally at work and he was aware that she had children. He initially thought that he could keep his relationship separate from her relationship with the children but realised that was not possible.409 367 At first, VL would come over to his house after she put the children to bed and some nights she would sneak him into the Blyth Street home after the children had gone to bed. He would not spend the entire night there. Later on, she wanted to introduce him to her children and her father; that was in early 2006.410 368 There came a time in late January 2006 when he was effectively living at Parkside but still had his unit at Glenelg. When he moved in, he was aware that VL came from a horrific domestic violence situation. He was told things by VL and her children. When he started staying over, VL, SS and CS also lived there. In late 2005, early 2006 CAS came to live there. He had never been in a relationship previously with anyone who had children.411 The age gap between him and VL was about 12 years.412 Their relationship was serious but they separated briefly for a couple of weeks in the middle of 2006. He still had doubts but it was a serious relationship. The doubts were not the result of the family dynamic; he loved VL even more for what she went through.413 369 When the accused worked at the Youth Court they would have lunch together most days. They would make dinner almost every night and chat about the day, because they had a lot in common. He would see her representing people and they would talk about that and other people they knew. They would generally go to bed at about the same time once her ‘mothering duties’ were taken care of. It was then that they would get to spend time together as a couple.414 370 The accused thought they had a normal and healthy sex life. They got along well but there was the odd issue that remained throughout the duration of their relationship. It was normally around alcohol and smoking. The accused hated cigarettes but VL continued to smoke throughout the relationship. There were also financial issues. When he met VL she had a HECS debt and other debts because 407 T 528. 408 T 528. 409 T 529. 410 T 529 411 T 530. 412 T 531. 413 T 541. 414 T 541-542. -- 83 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 82 of her relationship with NS. She lost her job at the Youth Court and he had to look after the family financially for a while. He loaned her money for clothes when she went to the bar. When they bought the property at Sheidow Park, the deposit was secured entirely from the proceeds of the sale of Camden Park.415 371 The accused said that he included VL in his social life as she did not appear to have one.416 372 The accused terminated the relationship but it was not acrimonious. Financial aspects were resolved at mediation. He discovered that the joint account they had for the mortgage repayments into which they agreed they would put equal shares was an account out of which she had been taking money.417 Work hours 373 The accused’s hours of work during their relationship were normally ‘8.30ish until 4.30ish’. It depended on how long it took to get things done after court hours. It was not a set 9-5pm each day. He and VL drove to work together because they worked virtually the same hours in the same building. When VL was at Market Street, there were a couple of times when she worked late.418 374 They would drive SS to Unley Primary School.419 375 The accused suggested it would be impossible for him to have had time to leave work, travel to Camden Park, have sex with SS and be back in time to pick up VL.420 On an ordinary weekday it would take at least half an hour to an hour to get to Camden Park. On weekends it would be about twenty minutes. He could not say how long it would take to get back into town from Camden Park because he could not recall a time when he picked up VL from the city having left from Camden Park.421 The accused could recall picking up SS from a little park around Rundle Street after work but he was pretty sure VL was with him.422 376 He would normally wait for the Magistrate to leave for the day, unless the magistrate was working back for hours. It was not a written rule but it was not a good look if his Magistrate needed him for something and he had left for the day.423 Relationship with SS 377 When he first met SS he thought she was physically ‘tiny’. She was initially shy and very quiet. She did not have many friends. She never really spoke much at all to anyone. She had nightmares regularly. When SS started talking to him 415 T 542. 416 T 543. 417 T 610. 418 T 543. 419 T 545. 420 T 545. 421 T 546. 422 T 546. 423 T 544. -- 84 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 83 about her father, he could tell she was terrified of him and terrified of him coming and hurting the family and stealing her away.424 378 The accused had been told by VL that she had barricaded herself in the room with the children and had been dragged out by NS, beaten and raped, but he was not sure how much of that the children actually witnessed.425 379 The accused knew that SS had an auditory processing disorder and dyslexia. He enjoyed reading so he tried to help her read. Once SS realised he was not going to make fun of her if she got the words in the wrong way, the floodgates opened and ‘she had all these things she wanted to say all her life and it all just came pouring out. After that, yeah, we got on very well. At one point she was, you know, almost like a daughter to me’.426 380 The accused was not left alone with SS in Blyth Street. There were periods of time where they might to the shops and things like that but in the house there was always someone there. He did not remember taking SS to the Lobethal Christmas Lights.427 381 SS became comfortable talking to him and they would play games and kick a ball around the backyard. This was his first interaction with a child in this way; this was the first time he had experienced this sort of attention from a child. SS would not leave him alone. He said: Even if I was just, like, you know, I had to go and jump in the car to go and get some milk or something, she’d be there, you know. She was always almost attached to me, like, wherever I went, yeah.428 382 The accused was asked whether he had any concerns about having physical contact with her. He said: I don’t know about concerns. I think it – I don’t remember when, those early stages but it would have been awkward for me, because, like I said, I’d never had that sort of relationship with, you know, a kid before. But I think after a while, you know, I didn’t really think much of it. It was obviously something that I realised she needed to feel secure, yeah, and I mean, [V] never said anything, she never really gave me any guidance, so I just sort of had to assume, you know, just wing it.429 383 The accused was asked whether there was ever an occasion when SS got too close. He said: A There was one occasion and to this day I’m still only about 90% sure, I believe that she tried to kiss me on the lips. 424 T 531. 425 T 532. 426 T 541, 1-11. 427 T 543-544. 428 T 547, 17-21. 429 T 547, 25-34. -- 85 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 84 Q Please tell her Honour about the circumstances of this. Where, when. A So this is at the Blyth Street address, I believe I was going to bed because the light was off in the kitchen/dining area and that usually meant that [V] and I were going to bed, you know, there was nothing left to do. I can assume I went to the toilet, because that’s usually what I do before I go to bed and I was walking down the hallway towards [V]’s bedroom and as I was passing the lounge room on my left I looked in, [CS] was playing a video game that I was interested in, and I sort of just stood in, basically in the doorway watching [CS] play for a bit. [SS] was on the couch to my left and she said ‘You might was well sit down’, and she moved over, I sat down, and I continued to watch [CS] play for a bit. And then at one point she effectively sat on me straddling my legs, so facing me with her legs either side of my lap and her hands on my shoulders [INDICATES] and I think I put my hands in front of me, I, you know, I wasn’t comfortable with this, and I remember I tried leaning around her to see the TV, thinking that, you know, she’d know what I was trying to do and the hint is ‘Get off’ but her face came towards me, I couldn’t see her face, I could just see the outline against the TV and I believed that she was attempting to kiss me. So I pulled my head away and I said, ‘No, I think or ‘N’, just an ‘N’ noise and something brushed my cheek, I don’t know if it was a nose or a mouth, or what and she then – I think she looked at me for a couple of seconds and then just got up and ran to her room.430 384 The accused said SS was 12-ish when this happened. There was no other occasion when he thought she might be trying to kiss him.431 385 There were occasions when he comforted SS if she was distressed. He said he was always comforting her because she was always terrified of something in those early stages. The accused recalled one occasion when LL was in the house and stalking up and down the hallway on the phone to his girlfriend shouting and screaming. At one stage LL said, ‘I can’t stay here ‘cos there’s a lover and a brother’. The accused was sitting on the couch between VL and SS. SS was upset and leaning into her so he put an arm around her and VL.432 The accused was not sure whether it was a direct comment in relation to this incident, but LL gave a statement supporting NS in the family court proceedings between NS and VL, saying he had seen inappropriate tactile contact between him and SS.433 386 There was another occasion after VL told LL not to come back but he showed up at the front door and was bashing on the glass. The accused told VL not to let him in but she said if she did not, he would smash the glass. LL came in and walked down the hallway past the accused and stood in the kitchen area shouting mostly at CS and swearing and SS was crying. The accused said he stood next to SS and CS was smiling, he thought it was funny. Eventually the accused told LL that was enough and to get out and walked him to the front yard. LL was muttering and cursing him; the accused stood in the doorway and watched him but did not say anything. LL accused him of looking at him with little piggy eyes and eventually left. After this, the accused and his friend BR, collected all of LL’s belongings 430 T 548, 6-38; T 549, 1. 431 T 549. 432 T 549. 433 T 550-551. -- 86 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 85 which were in a storage room at Blyth Street and dumped them on his girlfriend’s driveway.434 387 SS would constantly talk to the accused about her father. She told him about the abuse she witnessed. He did not think she came to him for advice. He accepted that he could have been viewed by SS as a father figure.435 I asked him if that was how he felt and he said: Eventually, yes, yeah. Even up until when these proceedings first commenced, I always looked on [S] as my first child, in a way.436 388 SS would sit next to him on the sofa when he was watching TV. The accused said his understanding of spooning was that it was an intimate act, not affection. Spooning was lying down, cuddling in an intimate way. He never lay down and cuddled SS in an intimate way.437 He said it would have been physically impossible because of the design of the couch: …the couches had a very high armrest, very hard, so there was just the space between them. You couldn’t lie without my knees being up in front of me, it just would have been impossible. I mean, I can remember sitting on one of those couches by myself and I would be effectively sitting as I am now, but my legs were out at an angle, off the end, off the side of the couch, because I couldn’t lie with my legs straight in front of me. There just wasn’t the room.438 389 The accused said there was room for her to sit on his lap. He did not remember SS doing that in the lounge room. That happened in the kitchen area, at the dining table. The times he could recall would be when he was sitting at the table when VL was cooking dinner and SS would just come and sit on his lap. She would face at a right angle and just lean against him. How often SS did this, depended on how she was feeling. If she felt more vulnerable and needed reassurance it would happen more often. He did not invite her to sit on his lap, it as ‘almost like a dog just comes and jumps on your lap, you know. I’d just be talking, ‘There she is again’, we’d just keep talking you know.’ He said she could have sat on his lap on the couch. They did not lie under a blanket; he did not lie like that with VL. He did not remember a blanket being in the lounge room.439 390 The accused’s mother raised concerns with him about his interactions with SS. The accused explained: Mum saw it when she, she first, I think, met the family. I don’t remember [S] sitting on my lap at that stage, but raised it with me when I drove her back, because mum was staying at the Camden Park address when she came down and she’d come to meet the family for the first time and I believe it was during that meeting that [S] must have sat on my lap and when I drove mum home that afternoon she said ‘You probably shouldn’t do that, it’s not 434 T 549-560. 435 T 551. 436 T 552, 3-5. 437 T 552. 438 T 552, 34-38; T 553, 1-4. 439 T 553-554. -- 87 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 86 a good look’, something like that, and I think I just, I laughed it off, I’m like ‘She’s a kid’, you know, you know, didn’t think anything of it. And I think it wasn’t until either that night, or maybe a few days later, it sort of stuck with me and I thought, ‘Well if that’s mum’s opinion, you know, maybe other people would have the same opinion’. So I put a stop to that.440 391 His mother visited in October 2006, so he put a stop to it just after that.441 VL never said anything to him; he thought it actually made her happy to see it. He could see her smiling at him when SS would come and sit on his lap. No one else in the family said anything.442 There was no more cuddling or sitting in his lap after that. He did not have a discussion with SS about it. SS would still try to sit on his lap but he would make an excuse and stand up and say something like, ‘I need to go to the toilet’ and eventually the penny dropped and she just stopped trying.443 392 SS’s behaviour changed during the time the accused knew her. Around the time she started high school, she started having boyfriends and a lot more friends and was more outgoing and social. They saw less of her. She was more confident and had quite a bit of attitude. She told the accused that she had brought a boy called J to the house at Camden Park at some point and had sex with him.444 He could not recall, but he probably told VL because SS was too young to be doing that sort of thing and he did not want it going on under his roof.445 Relationship with CS 393 At first, the accused got on well with CS. However, CS became angry when he found out that he was dating his mother. After that, they always got on very well. They were both into sports and the same movies, video games, music and had a lot of common interests. CS was not living with them when he first moved in. He recalled the lead up to CAS arriving and the general apprehension by VL and the other children. It was very clear that she was not welcome and was only being sent by her father to cause trouble.446 394 The accused recalled a boy named G. Either VL or SS or both told him that G had been approaching SS at school and people at the school had directed him not to attend any more and told VL. Later on, SS told him that she had been in CAS’s car with CS’s boyfriend and G, and SS and G were left in the car by themselves and SS felt pressured into having sex with G. SS told the accused at some point that she had lost her virginity to G. This conversation was at the Blyth Street home.447 440 T 554, 19-34. 441 T 554. 442 T 555. 443 T 568. 444 T 574. 445 T 574-575. 446 T 532. 447 T 575-576. -- 88 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 87 395 SS told him there was a later occasion when she met up with G at school and had sex with him on the seats around the oval. She was not embarrassed when she told him but said it in a way suggesting it was funny.448 Relationship with CAS 396 The accused said life was ‘hell’ once CAS arrived. Initially she was polite but the accused did not like or trust her and he had no doubt the feeling was mutual. He tried to be civil and they had ordinary conversations but they were never close in any way.449 Interactions with NS 397 The accused thought he and VL had been warned that NS was in South Australia in mid-2006. He started showing up where the accused and VL worked.450 At that time, VL had a restraining order against NS. The accused saw NS at his work on at least two or three occasions.451 398 The first time the accused saw NS was when NS was sitting outside the Court Café outside the Magistrates Court. Although he had never met NS before, he was keeping a look out for him and had seen photographs and been given a description. He knew it was NS as the Café from the way he looked at him. The accused described what happened next: Okay, so I saw him sitting there, he was having a coffee. I walked past him. I had dark sunglasses on but I was able to keep an eye on him without him knowing I was watching him, and then when I got to near the side entrance of the Magistrates Court I turned around because I didn’t feel good about it, and I walked back past him and got on the phone to [V] and I said ‘I think [N]’s here, I described him, she said ‘Yeah, that’s probably him’. I sort of stood around what was then I think a pawn shop used to be there. Eventually he stood up and ran directly across the road towards what was then a vacant lot directly opposite and I lost sight of him. I then called [V], or I might have still been on the phone to her and I said ‘I think he’s heading towards the Youth Court’ because he was heading down Wright Street. I can’t remember what was said or what happened next, I just remember walking up to that corner of King William and Angas and I was standing there and he – I looked up and I saw him crossing the road with a whole bunch of other people, he was looking straight at me and had his fists bunched by his sides and he came straight up to me and he said something like ‘Do you know me? Do you know me?’ and he was sort of shouting and I was – I tried to back up and I just sort of said ‘No, I don’t know who you are’ or anything like that. And he literally just paced backwards and forwards in front of me in a threatening and intimidating way for a while. I think some other things were said, I can’t remember what, but eventually he sort of lost interest and walked away and I went to work.452 448 T 577. 449 T 533. 450 T 533. 451 T 534. 452 T 534, 38; T 535, 1-29. -- 89 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 88 399 The accused believed VL reported the incident to police. The incident occurred around 8.30am.453 400 There was another occasion when NS followed the accused to the Mill Street carpark one day after he had been working at the Magistrates Court. It was in 2006. As the accused walked up Mill Street towards the carpark, he saw a small red car that had pulled to a stop at the intersection of Wright and Mill Street. A man was leaning out of the window looking at him and he was pretty sure it was NS. The accused went into the ticket office and was paying for the ticket when NS walked in directly towards him. The accused did not say anything or look at him and got into the lift. NS stood right behind him and got in the lift with the accused and several people whom he did not know.454 NS was staring right at him. The accused got out a floor earlier than where he had parked because he did not want NS to know which one his car was. NS followed him and as he was approaching his car, the accused turned around and said something and NS smirked and said ‘that’s your car there, isn’t it?’ and the accused said no, that he did not know who NS was and that he had the wrong guy. NS said, ‘You’re the guy whose fucking my wife’. The accused tried to deny it. NS stood there with his arms crossed and said ‘I don’t know what I’m going to do’ as if to say he was considering assaulting the accused. Eventually he walked away and the accused got in his car and left. NS was pointing directly at the accused’s silver Mitsubishi Lancer when he said, ‘that’s your car’.455 The accused believed VL reported this to the police.456 401 There was a time when the accused and VL’s concerns about NS were such that VL, SS and CS came to stay with him at his unit in Glenelg.457 They thought that NS knew where they were living in Parkside. They stayed in the Glenelg unit for a couple of weeks. He had not met NS when this happened.458 They moved back to Parkside around the time CAS came down because there would not have been room there for her and the accused did not want her there.459 402 There was one more confrontation at a rugby match being played by CS. The accused’s parents had come down and they, the accused, VL, SS, CAS and her boyfriend were watching CS play rugby. They were sitting in the stands and NS approached and stood directly in front of him and VL and scowled. That was the last interaction the accused had with NS and it could have been later on, in 2007.460 403 The accused also recalled an occasion at Parkside when CAS was sitting at the dining table, VL was there and possibly SS and CS. CAS was on the phone and 453 T 535-536. 454 T 536-537. 455 T 537. 456 T 539. 457 T 537. 458 T 538. 459 T 538. 460 T 538. -- 90 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 89 put it on speaker and NS said something along the lines of ‘I’m going to get them’ and ‘you better get out of my bed’.461 404 The accused said none of them slept very much at all because they were worried that NS might turn up at any moment. The street was a no-through road so very little traffic came down it. If a car did go past, they would all run to the window to see if NS had arrived. They lived under a constant cloud. The accused changed where he parked after the Mill Street incident but was not sure what other precautions they took.462 405 There was a time when he and VL were asked to come into the police station. VL was spoken to first and when she came out, she was laughing and said ‘you won’t believe this’. The accused went in and the police officer told him it was alleged that he had told SS he was going to get a gun to deal with NS if he ever came to the house. The accused denied this and said he had never applied for a firearms licence.463 406 The accused had an opportunity to look at some detailed occurrence reports which refreshed his memory. Although one incident was hazy, there was a time when NS pursued VL in his car. The accused was in a separate car on Anzac Highway. NS was in a blue for utility and he was swerving at VL and driving dangerously and in an intimidating manner. He slowed right down to hold her up. The accused pulled a head and did a U-turn and as he was coming back in the opposite direction the accused took off, leaned out the window and gave him the finger.464 407 The accused’s vehicle was egged when it was Camden Park.465 Camden Park 408 The accused said his parents first floated the idea of purchasing a property in 2004. It was not his idea because he did not have any savings. His parents told him that they and his grandparents had saved a bit of money for him to use as a deposit and it was the time when the first homeowner’s grant was being offered. This was before me met VL. He bought the Camden Park property in the first half of 2006.466 He got the keys to the property in about August or September.467 409 The contract for the purchase of the property at Camden Park was tendered: Exhibit D 29. 410 On the day the accused got the key, he thought he had taken the day off. VL finished work early to be there and it was later in the afternoon. The real estate 461 T 539. 462 T 539-540. 463 T 573-574. 464 T 605. 465465 T 605. 466 T 540. 467 T 569. -- 91 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 90 agent arrived and handed him the keys at the front door and VL took some photographs of that and inside.468 The accused was shown P 22 and said the first photograph was of him shaking the hand of the real estate agent and holding a welcome package. The second photograph was in the lounge room when he was celebrating. No one else was there that day.469 411 When the accused, SS and VL were living in Camden Park, CAS and CS were already living with NS. At that stage, NS did not know about the Camden Park property and they wanted to keep it that way. One night when the accused was asleep, he woke up to head SS talking in the next room which was unusual because he did not think she had a phone. He got up, stood next to the wall and listened for a bit and then heard her say ‘Dad’ and ‘what will you buy me if I come and live with you?’. The accused told VL. VL leapt out of bed, stormed into SS’s room and hit her over the top of the head a couple of times and took the phone away.470 412 The next day or a few days later, he came home and SS was gone. One of his dining chairs was next to a small side gate and she had gone over the gate using the chair. They had not locked her in the house.471 He did not know where she had gone but assumed it was to her father.472 413 There was another incident when SS barricaded herself in the bathroom. She had VL’s phone and VL was trying to break down the door to get in. The accused found a butter knife and flicked the latch to unlock it. VL stormed in and hit SS again in a similar way and took the phone.473 414 The accused recalled the day that SS returned to Camden Park from her father’s home. VL was already home and when the accused walked in the door, VL and SS were sitting on the couch with big smiles on their faces. He was shocked. He said, ‘what’s going on’ and VL said SS is back. He was angry because it was his house and he thought he should have been consulted.474 Accused’s responses to allegations of sexual activity 415 The accused denied having sex with SS on the night she came back to Camden Park. He was aware that there was a spare mattress in CS’s room because that was where his friends would sleep but he could not recall seeing it anywhere else. He could not remember any occasion when SS could not sleep in her own bed and had to sleep in a mattress in the lounge. He denied the allegation he got on top of SS when she was on a mattress in the lounge room and ground his penis against 468 T 587. 469 T 588. 470 T 570-572. 471 T 571. 472 T 572. 473 T 573. 474 T 577-578. -- 92 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 91 her vagina. He was asked if he had a particularly small penis and he said he thought it was normal sized. 475 416 The accused could only recall one occasion when he went into SS’s bedroom and that was because of CAS. There may have been other occasions but he could not remember them. He did not have unprotected sex with SS at any time.476 417 When asked if SS had reached puberty before the age of 11, the accused said he was not qualified to say.477 418 The accused said he initially used condoms with VL but when she told him she could not fall pregnant again they stopped using protection. He could not remember if she was on the pill.478 419 When they were living in Blyth Street, CAS and CS could come and go as they pleased. LL was there fairly regularly.479 420 The accused could not recall the name MUJ and did not recognise her when she gave evidence. He did not recognise her picture in P3. He could not remember an occasion when he was left alone with SS and her friends. However, he said he would not have been comfortable being alone with someone else’s child. Having not been a parent himself, he would not have been comfortable with it.480 The accused explained: I wouldn’t have felt comfortable, certainly. I have no experience, I’d never babysat anyone in my life at that stage and I think it wouldn’t have been appropriate if – I know, if I had been a parent and I found that my child was alone with, effectively, a stranger, I wouldn’t have been happy. So I just – I wouldn’t have felt comfortable and I wouldn’t have thought it was appropriate.481 421 The accused had a vague memory of SS bringing a female friend to the house. It was possible that she had other friends who came to stay he just could not remember this.482 422 The accused said the laundry was at the back of the house. VL did the laundry at that time. The accused had no recollection of tickling SS’s legs on the sofa but said that was something he could have done. He had tickled his own nieces and cousins and own children in exactly the same way.483 423 The accused said there were never any occasions when he, VL and SS were in VL’s bed together. When asked if it was possible and he had forgotten, he said 475 T 578-589. 476 T 580. 477 T 581. 478 T 581. 479 T 582. 480 T 582-583 481 T 584, 10-17. 482 T 583. 483 T 584-585. -- 93 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 92 that if she had spent the night in bed as VL or SS said he would remember it. When asked about getting into the bed briefly or something like that he said he had a vague memory of her standing to the side watching television with them but she was never in the bed with them. He did not remember the incident VL described when she brought SS in because of CS’s friend.484 424 The accused denied that there was ever an occasion when he was in bed with SS reading a book when they were surprised by CAS.485 His memory of helping SS with her reading was that they were always at the dining room table because there was room to spread out.486 He did not believe he was ever alone in the bedroom with SS. The time he went into her bedroom was when there was an altercation between VL and CAS which escalated into a physical brawl. VL slapped CAS twice and CAS pulled out a chunk of VL’s hair and they were wrestling on the bedroom floor and he had to separate them.487 425 The accused said he had never had anal sex and had never been interested in it and never would be. He never tied SS up to his bed with work ties.488 Soccer 426 The accused said he trained on Tuesdays and Thursdays and at some point, it changed to Wednesdays and Fridays. It was roughly 6.00pm-8.00pm. He did his best to attend training because it was an unwritten rule that if you did not train you would only get half a game.489 427 On matchdays which were Sundays, ‘kick-off was around midday, 1 o’clockish’. He would try to get to the ground 45 minutes to an hour before the kick-off. If it was a home game, the As, Bs and Cs generally played at the same ground. The As and Bs always played at the same ground, whether it was home or away. For a home game, the accused would try to get there an hour earlier.490 428 The Cs played first if it was a home game. Home games were just behind the Morphettville Racecourse. He was in B grade. If the Cs were playing, he would watch them and he would stay and watch the As. Once or twice, he subbed in for the As, and occasionally for the Cs. After the game they would go to the change rooms, have a shower and that was when the first beer would arrive. He would get something to eat because he would be starving. If it was his round, he would get the next beer and he and the other players would stand around and watch the As play. It was a very social soccer club. They would socialise until about dinner time.491 484 T 585. 485 T 585. 486 T 586. 487 T 587. 488 T 606. 489 T 589. 490 T 589. 491 T 590-591. -- 94 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 93 429 The away soccer matches were all over the place. He would take a street directory to find the address as he was still unfamiliar with South Australia. He would put it on top of his bag on the passenger seat so he could look at it and refer to it. If anyone had come with him to an away game they would have to sit in the back of the car.492 430 Games were always scheduled for the same time on a Sunday. He carpooled with other players when he moved to Sheidow Park. He played with his friends BR and LE who were regular players in his club.493 They were friends he made through soccer. The social aspect of the game was just as important as the game.494 431 The accused could only recall one occasion that SS came to a game. It was a home game. His memory was that she was coming to try and make friends because there was quite a number of other kids there. However, on that day, she stood by herself, behind and to the side of the goals at one end for the entire game. She did not try to speak to anyone or socialise. At half time he ran over and told her she did not have to stand there by herself but she said she was happy there. After that, she was not interested in coming to any more games.495 She did not want to be a babysitter for the other children who were at least a few years younger than her.496 432 The accused’s recollection was that VL never came to a single one of his games and that was always irritating: ‘the five years we were together, she never made the effort’. He said he would have liked her to come to at least one. The As and Bs both won the premiership and grand final. That was when he was living at Sheidow Park. When he was playing in the grand final no one from the family came to watch him play.497 The accused said the only thing that VL came to was the end of season presentation night for the club. SS was there as well.498 The accused’s friends – BR and LE 433 VL came to parties at BR’s house. They went camping once. Generally, if he was catching up with BR and LE, VL would be there. BR and LE had partners and he and VL would socialise with them as couples. BR’s wife had a fortieth birthday at the club which VL and SS attended.499 Holidays to Queensland 434 The accused returned to Queensland between five and 10 times during his relationship with VL. After arriving in South Australia, he had always spent every 492 T 595. 493 T 591. 494 T 592. 495 T 592. 496 T 594. 497 T 593. 498 T 593. 499 T 595. -- 95 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 94 Christmas holiday in Queensland with his family. VL, SS and CS joined him on a couple of those trips. For Christmas 2006/2007 VL, SS and CS came along.500 435 On this trip they stayed with his parents in the Glass House Mountains. CS rode a quad bike. They all went to the Broncos Leagues Club in Brisbane because CS was a big fan and he got to run out on the training field. They also stayed at his grandparents’ house in Dicky Beach. The accused said his father was the person in the photograph on the first page of P8. On the second page, his cousin E, and SS were on beds. When they stayed at Dicky Beach, at some point his aunty and E also stayed there during their stay, possibly his grandparents but he was not sure.501 E and SS got along quite well; they were a similar age. They went to the Woodford Folk Festival for New Year’s Eve.502 436 The accused had never heard of his grandmother folding the sheets in a particular way. The doonas were always in the room somewhere but he recalled there was a top sheet.503 437 There was another time when VL and SS came to Queensland after he had arrived and they attended a wedding. This was in June or July of 2007 or 2008. The accused went up a week earlier for his friend, BC’s wedding. He was best man. VL and SS arrived the day after the buck’s party.504 438 The accused could not remember the order of those two holidays.505 Access to work vehicles 439 In his employment as a court clerk, he had occasion to use government cars. When the court sat in regional areas such as Mount Gambier, Ceduna and other places. He used government cars to go on circuit. The cars were to be used strictly for court purposes. He never used a government car for private use. When he had a government car for circuit purposes he was allowed to take it home. Generally it was collected on a Friday afternoon and he would have it over the weekend and leave for circuit on the Monday morning. Mileage was recorded in a paper logbook with the date, time opening odometer reading and how many kilometres travelled. He would have to record the starting position and destination.506 440 He never used a government car to take SS to Moana Beach. If it had been discovered that he had used a government car for private use at the very least he would have been pulled into his manager’s office for a ‘please explain’ and potentially disciplinary action.507 500 T 596. 501 T 597-598. 502 T 599. 503 T 599-600. 504 T 598. 505 T 599. 506 T 607. 507 T 608. -- 96 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 95 Valentine’s Day and Birthday cards 441 The accused said it was his writing in P4. It was not unusual for him to give Valentine’s Day cards to people other than those with whom he was romantically involved. He had done it quite a few times for a laugh and to cheer people up. He had a vague memory of SS being upset for not getting a Valentine’s Day card; at that stage she did not have many friends and was lonely. He could have left a rose on the bed but he did not remember that.508 442 The accused did not recall the birthday card in P5. The reference to Drem was because SS made him a little bracelet out of beads which had his name on it but she put the W upside down. It was just a joke. He did not remember what Huggles was but it must have been a private joke.509 Pretext calls 443 When SS telephoned the accused, it was out of the blue. He had no suspicion that he was being recorded. When he asked SS whether everything was all right with her father and LL he was referring to his memories of NS and LL and all the unpleasantness and was asking whether it had all come to an end.510 444 The accused was then taken to the passage in the second pretext call when SS asked him if he ever thought about the times they had together. He responded ‘yeah, funnily enough, all the time’ and explained that on the way to work there was a sign with two girls on it and one was her doppelganger. Whilst preparing for trial, the accused tried to obtain a photograph of that sign. He discovered that two weeks after the second pretext call it had disappeared but he was able to find it on Google Maps. A screenshot of the sign was tendered: Exhibit D30.511 Circumcised penis 445 The accused said he was circumcised. It did not cause him any embarrassment to acknowledge that medical fact.512 Cross-examination 446 After the altercation in the carpark with NS, the accused could not recall where he went in his car.513 447 The accused agreed that he would generally finish work around 4.30pm. He could not recall how long it took him to drive to the carpark from Blyth Street or to drive home after work. He could recall how long it took him to drive to Camden Park. He said it would have been at least forty minutes.514 He said he would be 508 T 608-609. 509 T 610. 510 T 611. 511 T 613. 512 T 613. 513 T 613. 514 T 614. -- 97 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 96 driving home a bit after 4.30pm, allowing for time to walk to the car park. He said it would take him roughly an hour to drive home to Sheidow Park. When he drove home to Camden Park he went down Anzac Highway. He rejected the suggestion that it took 30 minutes to get home and said the reason it stuck in his mind because it took so long.515 448 The accused was asked if he agreed that driving back to the city from Camden Park around 6-6.30pm on a night during the week would not take forty minutes. He said he did not know and could not answer that. He assumed there would be less traffic. He had no memory of driving back into the city at that time but said it was possible.516 449 The accused said he always drove to and from work with VL when they lived in Blyth Street. When VL was working at the Youth Court her hours were the same as his. When she was working in Market Street, he said they still drove in and back together.517 He could not recall if she finished at 4.30pm when she worked in Market Street. They would meet to go home somewhere around the Youth Court when she worked there but he could not recall where they met when she was in Market Street. They both went to the carpark together. He stopped parking in Mill Street after the incident with NS and started parking at the church on Whitmore Square and they would walk down Wright Street together to the car. He agreed that when he had the altercation with NS, VL was not with him at that stage. 518 450 The accused said it was possible VL worked late when she was in Market Street and if that was the case she may have driven in in her own car. He said it was possible that there were some occasions when they would drive in separately but he did not have a memory of that. His memory was of them driving in together. He said if he had known beforehand that she was working late and he had soccer training they would have made alternate arrangements.519 451 The accused could not remember driving home with SS and VL. He recalled an occasion when they picked her up from a park near Rundle Street but he did not remember driving home. He assumed they did.520 452 When they were living in Camden Park, SS went to the city with friends and hung around until he and VL finished work.521 He assumed SS came home with them but he did not have a memory of it. He said it was possible that SS would come home alone in the car with him if VL was working late. However, he said 515 T 615. 516 T 616. 517 T 616. 518 T 617. 519 T 618. 520 T 619. 521 T 619. -- 98 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 97 that if that was the situation, VL would have arranged it with SS and told him about it.522 453 The accused agreed that CS was fairly frequently away from the house at Blyth Street.523 There were periods of time when CAS was not in the house at all and would not sleep in the house. He and VL went to be around 8.30-9.00pm but he could not say when they turned the lights out.524 454 The accused could not say when he started to feel like SS was almost a daughter to him. He agreed that he had a close relationship with her when they were living at Blyth Street. They would do things together like a father and daughter would. He did not know when the children went to bed; they did not have bedtimes of which he was aware. Quite often they would still be up when he and VL went to bed. He could not remember SS going to bed before him but said she may have. He never checked on her in her room to make sure she was okay. He said had no reason to go in there just as he had no reason to go in CS’s room.525 455 The accused said that the incident when SS straddled him in the lounge room was very different from when she would sit on his lap in the kitchen.526 456 The accused said he could have laid down on the couch but he would not have been able to have someone in front of him because his knees would have been up.527 He said only an infant could have fit in front of him.528 457 The accused said he did not have a memory of being left alone in the Blyth Street house with SS but said it was possible.529 458 The accused agreed that SS’s bed was not immediately visible through the doorway to her bedroom.530 459 The accused was not aware of times when VL would not be at the Camden Park house and he would be left alone with SS.531 He said it was possible but he had no memory of it.532 460 The accused agreed that if he left work at 4.30pm and drove to Camden Park it was possible he could be back in the city before 6.30pm.533 He agreed that if it 522 T 620. 523 T 620. 524 T 621. 525 T 622. 526 T 623. 527 T 623. 528 T 624. 529 T 625. 530 T 626. 531 T 626. 532 T 627. 533 T 628. -- 99 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 98 was not rush hour, then during the week or on a weekend it would take about twenty minutes to drive from Camden Park to the city.534 461 The accused was asked whether, if he factored in a sexual act taking 15-20 minutes once he returned to Camden Park, he could be back in the city by 6.15pm on a weeknight. He said ‘I’m guessing it could be possible in the right circumstances’.535 462 The accused said that it was possible he left P4, one of the Valentine’s Day cards, on SS’s bed. He could not recall giving her a rose on that occasion.536 If he had left the card on her bed, he would have had to have gone into her bedroom. He agreed that he had not put his name on the two Valentine’s Day cards but said that was not because he wanted to keep them a secret. He said, ‘I thought that was how Valentine’s Day cards were traditionally worded, I believe’.537 463 The accused said that he had not given a Valentine’s Day card to any other 12 or 13-year-old girls or someone who was not a child.538 464 The accused was asked whether he thought it was appropriate to give P5 to a 14-year-old girl given the message that had been prewritten in there: ‘how about a birthday kiss pretty thing? Anything else is going to cost you’. He said, ‘I think so, yes’. He believed this was a card purchased with VL’s knowledge. He said he probably bought it himself. He said the theme of both birthday cards was that they were meant for a laugh.539 465 The accused said that when he responded in the pretext call ‘I forgot all about that’ to SS’s comment ‘I reckon my favourite time is when you surprised me with the Valentine’s Day on my bed and the rose and then we went driving to, like get frozen Coke and McDonald’s, yeah’ he could not say to what he was referring.540 466 The accused said that when he told SS in the pretext call ‘I had those notes and things you wrote and made for so long until my ex-wife basically told me to get rid of them’ he was referring to the little notes and drawings and a bracelet that she had made and he had kept in a garbage bag in which he had kept everything in relation to VL and her family. He kept them for about a year after the settlement of the Family Court proceedings just in case anything else came of it. Then when he and his partner moved house, he took the opportunity to throw it all out. He thought that was in 2012. The other things in the bag were hardcopy photographs, all of the Family Court material and presents VL had given him over the years.541 534 T 629-630. 535 T 631, 30-31. 536 T 638. 537 T 639. 538 T 639-640. 539 T 641. 540 T 642, 541 T 643-644. -- 100 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 99 467 The accused said they all moved into Camden Park because they had to leave Parkside to get away from NS.542 He agreed that before 2007 he had moved his furniture into Camden Park and when he had the keys he was still living at Blyth Street.543 He would go to Camden Park to collect mail and mow the lawn. He did not go there before and after soccer because he had all his soccer gear at Blyth Steet. He said there was a bed there and he thought it had a metal frame; he had a metal framed bed at Glenelg.544 468 The accused said he did not take SS to Camden Park to show her the property. There was one occasion when she came after work when she had homework to do and CS may have had friends at Parkside and it was loud. The accused was putting together a multi-station gym in his garage and someone suggested it would be easier if SS did her homework at his place where she could have the house to herself. He took her to Camden Park on that occasion.545 That was the only occasion. He never went there with SS after soccer games.546 469 A passage from the second pretext call was read to the accused. SS said, ‘Yeah, remember how I used to go there after your soccer games?’. The accused responded, I remember, yeah, and I was building a stupid gym that I never used’. The accused agreed that he said that but said ‘I don’t agree with how it’s presented in the transcript’.547 The accused explained: A Thank you. So, yes, at line 393, I say ‘I remember’ and it sounds like I was about to say something else and then I go off on a tangent, ‘Yeah, and I was building the stupid gym I never used’. That’s what it sounded like to me. XXN Q Just so we understand, you agree with the words as they’re written in the transcript. A Yes. Q But you say they have a certain meaning in your mind. A Yes. There’s – well, I think if I’d been typing the transcript I would have put a dash or something after the word ‘remember’, just to indicate that there’s a break and a different sentence, so to speak. HER HONOUR Q So Mr [F], are you saying that in terms of the literal reading of that sentence, if you – or when we listen to the recording, there’s a pause and issues of intonation and so on. 542 T 644. 543 T 645. 544 T 646. 545 T 647. 546 T 648. 547 T 648, 36-38. -- 101 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 100 A I believe so, your Honour, when I listen to it, yeah, there was – it definitely sounded to me like I start to say ‘I remember’ and then there’s a separate thought from ‘Yeah, I was building’.548 470 The accused said he could not now recall what he meant when he said this. He disagreed with the suggestion that he was agreeing with SS that she used to go to his house after soccer games.549 471 The following passage from the second pretext call was read to the accused: Accused: I actually really liked that place. I think it was, that’s my first house. SS: Yeah. I think it was your first house or first unit. I think you were the first – I was the first one you took there. Accused: That’s right ‘cos the house was empty. SS: Yeah the house was empty and we went there Accused: Mmm SS: together ‘cos just me and you. Accused: Mmm, so what you, um, you got um access to a car, you got a car here.550 472 The accused said if SS was referring to the time she was there doing her homework, then they would have been alone. The accused rejected the suggestion that he was agreeing with SS that she was the first person he took there. He agreed there was an occasion when he took her there and the house was pretty much empty but that was the occasion when she did her homework. There was no other occasion.551 473 The accused agreed that the couch in P7 was there from the time that he, VL and SS moved in. The bed in photographs 7 and 8 was VL’s bed. He agreed that must have replaced the metal framed bed but he did not remember this.552 474 The accused said there were two occasions he could remember going into SS’s bedroom at Camden Park. One was when she was on the phone to her father and the other time was when he heard a loud bang and she had punched one of his heaters and broken it. SS had wanted to go to a party and VL said no. She had been throwing herself on the floor and stomped off to her room and then they heard a bang. It was a small heater with a metal mesh front. SS said she punched it.553 475 The accused said he was happy ‘in a way’ to see SS again after she returned from living with her father. However, he did not trust her, considering how she left 548 T 649, 18-38; T 650, 1-2. 549 T 650. 550 MFI-P12B, p 21, 397-403. 551 T 651. 552 T 653. 553 T 653-654. -- 102 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 101 the house and he was not happy VL had brought her back without asking him. He was not happy with the situation. He did not think their relationship ever returned to what it was before she left. His faith and trust in her had been broken.554 476 The accused played soccer every Sunday during the season which started in March and ran until September.555 He said it was possible SS came to one other soccer game but he did not think it was likely. On the occasion that he did recall her going to soccer, they went back to Blyth Street because that is where they were living at the time.556 He was pretty sure they drove in his Jeep to the game. He bought the Jeep in early 2007.557 477 The accused said it was entirely possible that there were occasions when he and SS were alone together in the Camden Park house.558 478 The accused said it was possible that for some part of the holiday when they were staying at Dicky Beach, they had the house to themselves.559 479 The accused said he could not remember how may times he went on circuit in 2008 and 2009.560 The accused said when he picked up a fleet car on a Friday he would just take it home. He would put the trip home in the logbook together with the odometer reading.561 He denied that it was possible he drove out to Moana in a fleet vehicle on a Friday night. He did not know how far away Moana Beach was. He was not exactly sure where it was.562 480 The accused said the occasion when he and VL were asked to come into the station was one he had forgotten about. He said considering everything else going on it was not a big deal.563 481 The accused said that as far as he was aware, SS never saw him naked. He agreed she would never have seen that he was circumcised.564 482 The allegations were then put to him in sequence and detail and he rejected each and every allegation by saying ‘no’. 483 An application was made to tender 12 detailed occurrence reports dated 8 April 2005 – 12 April 2008. I received those reports on the voir dire565 and indicated to counsel that I would give each party the opportunity to make submissions 554 T 654. 555 T 654. 556 T 655. 557 T 656. 558 T 657. 559 T 657-658. 560 T 658. 561 T 659. 562 T 660. 563 T 661. 564 T 661. 565 VD-D34 – VD-D41. -- 103 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 102 regarding their tender in the trial proper and I would rule on that in course of my reasons for verdict. LE 484 LE had known the accused for just over twenty years. He was fifty-three years old when he gave evidence. He met the accused through soccer.566 LE started playing for Plympton Bulldogs with the accused in 2004. He played with him for four years and maybe a little bit after that. LE would socialise with the accused outside of soccer. He met VL and her daughter, SS at a social occasion. He might have met her on another occasion but he could not remember.567 485 He said he saw SS at the soccer ‘on the odd occasion’ and that was probably two or three at the most. He thought when he did see her, she was on her own.568 486 Soccer training was from 6.30pm-8.00pm on Wednesdays and Fridays. Games were on Sunday afternoons at 1.00pm and the A side played at 3.00pm. There was social aspect to soccer which involved going to the bar, having a few drinks and a chat and watching the next game. The accused would be involved in that.569 487 LE said that, in his opinion, the accused was trustworthy, reliable and friendly. LE was aware of the allegations in this matter. He had a 14-year-old daughter. He had no concerns whatsoever with the accused being around her. LE said that the accused’s reputation amongst the people whom he knew who also knew the accused was the same as his opinion of the accused’s reputation.570 Cross-examination 488 LE said he played soccer with the accused up until possibly 2010. He played with him for all of those seasons and trained together. Whilst playing soccer, he was not really focussed on the spectators. He said it was not possible that SS was at more games than a maximum of two or three. He said that was because the accused would have brought her down to watch the game and then taken her with him to the bar for drinks as normal.571 BR 489 BR has known the accused for more than twenty years. BR was 57 years old when he gave evidence. He met him through soccer, when he was playing for Plympton Bulldogs. BR started with that club in 2004 although he said it was a 566 T 690. 567 T 691. 568 T 692. 569 T 692. 570 T 693. 571 T 694. -- 104 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 103 long time ago so it was hard to be accurate. He played soccer for a number of years and remained friends with the accused after they both stopped playing soccer.572 490 BR was aware of the matter before the court. He knew that the accused was in a relationship with VL a couple of years after he got to know him. He had met VL a half a dozen times; they were social occasions. He and his wife socialised with VL and the accused at their house in Sheidow Park.573 He thought SS was at the house on this occasion but in her room. He said she definitely came and watched two or three soccer matches. He never saw her at an away game. When he did see her, he thought she was alone. He saw her after games at the club when they went back to socialise and have a beer after the match.574 Generally, the accused would stop and have a drink with them before he went home.575 491 BR described the accused as: He was just a good guy, he was a friend, he was a close friend that I trusted enough to stay at my house and socialise and spend time around my family. I was his best man. I wouldn’t have done that for any other reason than I thought that.576 492 BR said that his opinion of his character was shared by others in the community who knew him. He said ‘you could probably call anyone he used to play football with in this chair and they’d probably say very much the same thing’.577 Cross-examination 493 BR said he played soccer with the accused for ten or fifteen years. He played in the A’s for a number of years and then played B’s; the accused was generally in the B’s. Sometimes he played both. They generally played and socialised afterwards and they would all train together. Between 2006 and 2008 they were possibly in different teams; probably a mix of both.578 494 The only time he recalled seeing SS was in the clubrooms. The accused stayed for about an hour or so after the game for drinks. That was only after home games.579 With away games, people would go off and do their own thing after the game. He did not recall ever seeing SS at an away game.580 572 T 696-697. 573 T 697. 574 T 698. 575 T 699. 576 T 699, 13-17. 577577 T 699, 21-23. 578 T 699-700. 579 T 700. 580 T 701. -- 105 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 104 495 BR said he was sure there were occasions when the accused had other things to go off and do after a game. However, generally he was part of BR’s social circle and they would tend to do a lot of things together.581 BC 496 BC was 43 years old and a serving police officer with the Queensland Police Service when he gave evidence. He was stationed at the Wide Bay Burnett Tactical Crime Squad and had been there since 2012. 582 497 BC had known the accused since the mid-1990s when he started high school with him at Southern Cross Catholic College in Queensland. He became close friends with the accused. BC said that the accused was his best mate and his best man at BC’s wedding on 26 June 2008. BC was a groomsman at the accused’s wedding in 2016.583 498 BC said he was aware that the accused was facing charges of maintaining a relationship with a child. He did not understand much further that.584 499 BC was asked what he had observed as to the accused’s attitude to rules and fairness and the law and he said: Yeah, I always observed him to adhere to the law and to be a quite upstanding citizen. I’ve known him from when he started studying as a stenographer and across his period of time that he worked for the courts in South Australia. I’ve shared many a professional conversation around his work. I’ve always seen him to, yeah, never, never questioned laws or anything along those lines or have any reason for me to suggest otherwise that he has broken the law. He’s – yeah, I’m not – it’s quite difficult for me to understand why he’s facing the court today to be honest.585 500 BC said he knew the accused in their teenage years and they got up to some mischief but nothing untoward of any substance. BC had seen the accused in a number of different settings during their friendship. He was a close associate of BC’s family; his parents and children knew him. He had always been welcome in BC’s home and a close person in his family and social network.586 501 BC described the accused as: …quite the extrovert, quite the character and he has a sense of humour which not all the people I know have, which I enjoy and I see others enjoy quite often. He can generally find the lighter side of most things that come up and focus – from my observation, he’s a very positive person, overwhelmingly, yeah.587 581 T 702. 582 T 705. 583 T 706. 584 T 706. 585 T 706, 29-38; T 707, 1. 586 T 707. 587 T 707, 28-34. -- 106 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 105 502 BC said the accused was quite thoughtful and sensitive of others.588 They had relied on each other on a number of occasions through relationships and divorces and things like that.589 503 BC has three children, two girls a boy aged 11, 14 and 15. He has seen the accused interact with his children and he had no concerns at all. BC said the accused was always received positively and playfully. He had never had any reason to question his interaction with his children. BC said his view of the accused’s character was shared by others in the community who knew him: …I have not heard of anyone question his integrity in any fashion at all within my social network or at any stage, and considering what’s been going on, I’ve certainly given some thought to that and I’ve never had any – any reason to question his integrity or his actions.590 Cross-examination 504 BC confirmed he was not appearing in his capacity as a police officer. He had purposefully not probed into the charges but attempted to support the accused as best he could. However, given his profession and his knowledge of police methodology and having to register the accused as a reportable associate, he was required to limit his contact with him.591 505 He understood that the accused was charged with having a sexual relationship with a child in the mid-2000s. Her name was [S] and BC had met her mother V at his wedding and on a camping trip out west of Gatton where BC was studying. The accused had told him the allegations occurred on a regular basis around his soccer training but the conversation he had with him was a long time ago at the start of the proceedings.592 Closing submissions Prosecution 506 Detailed written submissions were filed by Ms Grossett and I heard supplementary oral submissions. A substantial part of the written submissions was devoted to summarising the evidence and I will not repeat that summary in these reasons. 507 Ms Grossett submitted that the evidence of CAS, CS, VL and MUJ established that the accused had the opportunity to commit the sexual acts the subject of the charge. 508 The evidence of SS that the accused would ‘spoon’ her on the couch and at times under a blanket was corroborated by CAS and CS. SS gave plausible explanations for the prior inconsistent statements by omission. Her account of 588 T 707. 589 T 708. 590 T 708, 27-32. 591 T 709. 592 T 709-710. -- 107 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 106 having suppressed memories of the forms of touching by the accused when he was spooning her should be accepted. Further, the credibility and reliability of her evidence that spooning in fact occurred was bolstered by the evidence of CAS and CS. 509 The evidence of SS that there was a spare mattress which she was sleeping on in the lounge room when the accused committed the sexual act the subject of particular (a) was supported by the evidence of VL that there were one or two mattresses in CS’s room or in the outdoor storage area. VL said they were used in the lounge room when the children had friends over. 510 The evidence of SS that there was an occasion when CAS walked into the bedroom when she and the accused were about to have sex and the accused pretended he was reading her a book was corroborated by CAS. It was argued that there was in fact no inconsistency between the evidence of SS that she and the accused were under the covers and the evidence of CAS that they were sitting on the bed together. CAS was clear in cross-examination that she could not recall whether they were on top of or under the covers. Importantly, CAS said that the accused and SS looked startled. 511 The configuration of the bedroom and the fact that SS’s bed was behind the door as it opened meant there was an opportunity for them to move out of the compromising position they were in before being detected. 512 Ms Grosset said that the initial complaint to MUJ was evidence that could be used to explain how the allegation first came to light and demonstrated consistency of conduct and account. SS complained to a person to whom, and in circumstances in which, it was reasonable to complain. Her account of having sexual intercourse with the accused was consistent with her sworn evidence. 513 In addition, Ms Grosset argued that the complaint evidence could be used to rebut the submission that SS had fabricated the allegations. 514 MUJ’s evidence of the tickling incident and laundry incident were also consistent with SS’s evidence that there was an occasion when MUJ was at her home and the accused encouraged her to go into another room and the two of them were away for a while and that he accused and SS interacted in a close physical way. 515 Ms Grosset submitted that the evidence of SS that she went to the Camden Park property with the accused on the day he got the keys was not inconsistent with the evidence of VL and the accused (and the photographs). It was argued that the accused could have returned to the property at a later time the same day or soon after, with SS who understood that this was the first day the accused had the keys. 516 Ms Grosset contended that the evidence did not exclude the possibility that SS attended a number of the accused’s soccer games. It was suggested that it was not beyond the realms of possibility that she was there and not seen. It was further -- 108 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 107 suggested that ‘it is reasonable that she may be mistaken as to how many times she attended when one considers the significant gap in time since this occurred and the fact that the number of games that she attended understandably may not be something that was at the forefront of her mind.’593 517 Ms Grosset said that SS’s explanation for lying to her mother about the reason she needed the morning-after pill was plausible and should be accepted. It was also argued that the friendly manner in which she spoke to the accused in both pretext calls was explicable by reason of the fact that she loved the accused and he was a man who treated her well and gave her attention as a child. Any conflicted feelings she had towards the accused were explicable on the basis that victims of child sexual abuse may react in a variety of ways to their abuser. 518 In her written submissions, Ms Grosset described SS as a credible and reliable witness who was forthcoming in her evidence on many topics. She did not paint the accused as a bad person and explained that he made her feel special and that she loved him. 519 On the topic of suppression of memories, Ms Grosset said that SS’s inability to recall certain matters as a result of trauma supported a submission that she was telling the truth. The submission was made that if SS had in fact fabricated the allegations why would she dilute her memory by suggesting she suppressed it. A further submission was made that it was reasonable to expect that the passage of time since the sexual abuse would affect her ability to recall every detail or occasion of sexual intercourse. 520 SS freely admitted her legal and illegal drug use. She denied that it had any effect upon her memory. Her drug use was explicable given her traumatic family background, irrespective of the alleged sexual abuse. 521 Ms Grosset asked me to reject any defence submission that the first occasion of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse as described by SS was inherently unlikely given her age and her asserted virginal state. There was no medical evidence suggesting the physical act was not possible or would have caused a greater deal of pain or physical trauma to SS than she described. 522 SS rejected outright the suggestion that her father had encouraged her falsely to claim that the accused had raped her. Whilst the evidence clearly demonstrated that NS was a criminal, who had been violent towards VL for many years, there was no evidentiary foundation for the suggested motive to lie. Ms Grosset argued that the initial complaint to MUJ provided a firm basis to reject the suggested motive. At the time SS made the complaint she had not spoken to her father since she arrived in South Australia. Further, Ms Grosset argued that nothing turned on the use of the word ‘rape’ by SS when she reported the matter to Senior Constable 593 Written Submissions of Prosecution, filed 26 November 2025. -- 109 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 108 Page. SS gave a plausible explanation for the use of that word, namely that she was not able to consent because of her age. 523 The evidence given by LL regarding his opinion that NS may have manipulated SS into making false allegations should be disregarded as inadmissible opinion evidence. There was no evidentiary foundation for it, as conceded by LL. Ms Grosset also filed detailed written submissions addressing the admissibility of the detailed occurrence reports, VD-D31-VD-D42. In summary, it was argued that the evidence was irrelevant and although genuine business records they ought not be admitted because their only purpose was to impermissibly bolster the credibility of the accused. 524 In addressing the accused’s evidence, Ms Grosset said that it plainly established that the accused had the opportunity to offend at the times and in the locations alleged by SS. He confirmed that he was circumcised. The good character evidence does not render impossible the offending. It was suggested that his good character was consistent with SS’s perception of him and explained how he was able to commit the offending over a lengthy period of time. 525 Ms Grosset said that I should reject the accused’s denials as not reasonably possibly true having regard to the evidence corroborating SS’s account of the offending, namely that the accused spooned SS, MUJ’s evidence about the ‘laundry incident’, and the compelling nature of SS’s account whose credibility was supported by the initial complaint evidence. 526 Ms Grosset identified the discreditable conduct evidence that would require directions pursuant to s34P and s 34R EA: 1. Spooning: On the prosecution case the spooning itself was not a charged particular but was led to explain how the offending commenced. 2. Reading in SS’s bed: On the prosecution case the accused being naked in the bed under the covers is discreditable conduct. 3. Touching SS on the outside of her vagina: This is an uncharged act and therefore discreditable conduct. It is not relied upon for a propensity purpose but for contextual purposes and to demonstrate the ongoing sexual relationship. 4. Kissing neck or body: These are uncharged acts which occurred on multiple occasions and therefore discreditable conduct. They are inextricably linked to the charged offending as they immediately precede the charged acts. 5. Uncharged sexual acts in Queensland: These uncharged acts are relied upon for a propensity and non-propensity purpose. The propensity purpose was articulated in the Discreditable Conduct Notice filed by the prosecution. It was asserted that this evidence establishes a sexual interest by the accused in SS and a willingness to act on that interest notwithstanding the risk of detection, thus making it more likely that the accused committed the sexual acts particularised. -- 110 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 109 Defence 527 In his extensive and detailed written submissions, Mr Norman KC made the overarching argument that the objective consideration of the totality of the evidence in the case demonstrated: a. The charged act had not been proved to the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. b. There was no reason prefer the evidence of the SS over that of the accused. c. It was reasonably possible that SS had told material lies and likely with the encouragement of her father NS. 528 It was argued that the prosecution case was largely incoherent, illogical, and relied on multiple and unlikely co-incidences, particularly in respect of the issue of opportunity. 529 The evidence was said to expose serious flaws in the reliability and credibility of SS’s evidence, both generally and in particular. Where SS’s account did condescend to any material detail, it was often contradicted by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses as well as her own diary entries and notes. 530 Mr Norman KC contended that when challenged in cross examination the SS’s testimony was inconsistent, malleable, and suspect. This was to be contrasted with the accused’s account which was said to be consistent, corroborated in multiple aspects by the prosecution’s own witnesses and remained wholly unimpeached through cross examination. 531 The summary of Mr Norman KC’s written and oral submissions which follows is lengthy because the submissions were so extensive and detailed. 532 In dealing with the evidence of SS, which was central to the prosecution case, Mr Norman KC submitted that it was difficult to separate issues of reliability from credibility, and a significant overlap may exist between the two; as the case proceeded it became increasingly difficult to distinguish whether SS was unable or unwilling to give accurate and truthful evidence. 533 It was said that SS’s traumatic childhood and its impact upon her psychological health, previous suicidal ideation, history of mixing anti-depressant and mood stabilizing medications with significant consumption of cannabis against medical advice, combined with her dyslexia, intellectual difficulties (to the extent that they were ever explained) as well as her evident distress in testifying raise what the Court may consider are unanswerable questions as to her capacity to give a proper, consistent, and full account of any allegations made against the accused. 534 It was argued that SS’s account of any detail of the sexual acts themselves was generic and often inconsistent with her sworn statements. Her evidence about -- 111 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 110 the sexual acts was often accompanied by expressions indicating SS was guessing, surmising or assuming that things had happened in a particular way. 535 Significant details within SS’s account changed frequently and even within the space of a few answers on the same topic. This was despite being presented with numerous opportunities to explain such changes by the Court. 536 SS consistently defaulted to similar (if not identical) explanations when challenged as to the inconsistencies in her account or behaviours. These explanations included the impact upon her of domestic abuse suffered by her and her family, her fear of being separated from her mother and siblings, her sexual naivete, the complexity of her feelings towards the accused, the suppression of traumatic memories recently disclosed, and by challenging the competence and integrity of the police officers, Page and Devlin. 537 In respect of the latter, SS’s explanation for telling Senior Constable Page that the accused raped her was highly dubious and likely to have been confected by her to explain away the truth. It is not to the point that SS might not have appreciated the nuances of legal difference between the offences of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse. Senior Constable Page clearly did and there was no reason to question his evidence on the issue. 538 SS having stated categorically to Senior Constable Page that this was a series of rapes, that she was ‘made to do these things’, and made to do them vaginally, orally, and anally wholly contradicted the subsequent trial narrative of a brief period of sexual naivete followed by wholesale enthusiasm for what was alleged to be happening between the parties. It was argued that if the evidence of the prosecution’s own witness, Senior Constable Page, was accepted, SS has lied about the fundamental issue of consent. Standing alone, the making of such rape allegations would be a matter of extraordinary concern. 539 Mr Norman KC argued that the rape allegations did not stand alone, but had been specifically repeated to SS’s grandfather, LL who recalled SS telling him over Christmas/New Year 2021 that she had been ‘regularly raped’ by the accused. Again, there was no reason to suspect that LL would have misunderstood or misinterpreted what SS had told him. To the contrary LL’s evidence was that NS had also announced to him that SS had been raped by the accused in a way described by LL as ‘almost triumphal’. 540 Again, it was said that as a matter of logic, if the prosecution’s own witness LL was accepted by the Court as a truthful and reliable witness, SS had also very likely lied when she flatly denied that such a conversation with her grandfather ever took place. 541 Reference was made to allegations opened upon by the prosecution of the accused ‘massaging her naked body’ and ‘sucking and biting her nipples’ said to have occurred on ‘multiple occasions’ which were entirely and notably absent from SS’s evidence. -- 112 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 111 542 Allegations opened upon by the prosecution of the accused ejaculating upon her body in the early stages of penile vaginal intercourse said to have occurred at the Blyth Street address were specifically denied by SS. 543 It was submitted that the stark contrast between SS’s professed sexual naivete and an enthusiasm for sophisticated sexual acts was jarring, never properly reconciled, and unravelled when SS volunteered having seen graphic pornography with her siblings well before she ever met the accused. 544 SS’s diary entries and jottings were said to raise serious and disturbing questions as to her mental processes and motivations. SS’s explanations for her own diary entries that ‘mum was allowing this to go on’ and ‘she made it out to be like dad was going to kill me’ were as unsettling as they were unconvincing. That SS might in fact bear some hidden ill will towards her mother in any way for either facilitating the father’s abuse or separating the family in some way was said to be a matter of real concern. 545 SS’s various explanations for D15 and her entries ‘when they would have sex I would get angery and I would make it obivose. It would just start a fight between me and mum’ and ‘I always thought there was something wrong with me and that why Drew didn’t pick me’ lacked any real credibility. 546 Mr Norman KC then emphasized the prior inconsistent statements by omission on fundamental aspects of SS’s account of the sexual acts. In her statement of 5 January 2021 given to Detective Devlin, no allegation of rape or anal sexual intercourse was made. Despite this, SS would not accept that she had in fact said nothing about anal sex or about being raped in any way to Detective Devlin. Her explanation for the omission from her statement of the allegation of anal sex was implausible (Detective Devlin did not want to/chose not to put it in there) and in light of the evidence of Detective Devlin should be rejected. Even more implausible was SS’s evidence that Detective Devlin said that as the allegations were historical, they were ‘most likely not going to go anywhere’. 547 Detective Devlin’s evidence on this topic should be accepted and a finding made that SS did not make any mention of any sort of rape or anal sex and nor did Detective Devlin tell her that the case was going nowhere. 548 Notable inconsistent statements by omission were proved in relation to SS’s evidence that the accused had touched her sexually during the occasions that they had been ‘spooning’ on the couch at Blyth Street. In evidence, SS said the accused had touched her breasts, bottom and vagina. 549 In her statement of 5 January 2021, SS made no mention whatsoever of any sexual act during the occasions of spooning. Despite accepting that this did not appear in her statement, SS insisted in cross examination that she had in fact told Detective Devlin that the accused had touched her breasts and bottom (but not -- 113 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 112 vagina) during the ‘spooning’. Detective Devlin gave evidence that if SS had told her this had happened, she would have included it in the statement. 550 In her statement dated 29 January 2024 SS again made no mention of any sexual touching having occurred during the ‘spooning’ beyond the accused having rubbed her belly button and remarked upon the fact that it was not pierced. 551 In her statement dated 3 April 2024 SS claimed for the first time that the accused had touched her breasts during ‘spooning’ but made no mention of him touching her bottom or vagina or any further alleged sexual acts. 552 The final statement made by SS on 26 October 2025 in the days before the trial commenced referred to a photograph of a couch where the ‘spooning’ was alleged to have occurred but there was no mention of the accused touching her breasts, bottom or vagina or any further alleged sexual acts. 553 In addition, the way in which SS came to testify about the sexual touching that was alleged to have occurred raised further questions about the credibility and reliability of her evidence on this topic. The prosecution opened on the basis that ‘the accused’s conduct towards [SS] relative to Count 1 commenced when the accused started spooning the complainant on the couch’ . Further it was said that ‘this evidence of commencement of the spooning is led on the prosecution case, to assist your Honour in understanding the starting point’. 554 However, in evidence in chief when SS was asked to recall when the relationship ‘changed to become sexual’ she initially said that was the time in Blyth Street with the mattress when the accused was on top of her. This was in fact a clear and apparent reference to what might be described as ‘the mattress incident’ set out below and was consistent with the SS’s initial affidavit in that the ‘spooning’ was not described as sexual in any way. When led back to the topic of touching SS confirmed that the accused had not touched her sexually before the mattress incident, and any touching might have been holding hands. She was asked if they cuddled or anything like that and she unequivocally said, ‘not until after we started being sexual’. She then corrected her evidence by saying ‘sorry it wasn’t after we were sexual’ and then went on to describe the accused touching her breasts, bottom and her body. 555 Mr Norman KC argued that SS’s evidence on this topic was fluid, ambiguous, and inconsistent even within the space of a few lines. He said that whilst every allowance should be made for the stress of giving evidence, the questions were clear and uncomplicated and yet the answers were contradictory. In isolation it might be thought a simple slip soon corrected but in context it became clear that it was part of a pattern of inconsistency. More concerningly, for the first time, SS added the detail of touching her vagina for the very first time when she said, ‘…but most of the time he would touch my, like breasts and bum, and sometimes like my vagina, depending like if we had a blanket or not on us’. -- 114 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 113 556 In addition, when asked what she meant by her use of the term ‘spooning’ SS went as far as to allege that it included full penetrative sexual intercourse. When challenged about why this was not in her first statement of 5 January 2021, SS said she told Detective Devlin but it was Detective Devlin who decided what was or was not put in her statement. Despite agreeing that she read her statement before signing it she only realised when she was given a copy years later how much detail had been omitted. She then referred to her dyslexia and that she sometimes missed out words or explaining things. 557 When challenged as to why none of her affidavits in fact ever referenced the accused touching her vagina during the spooning SS initially positively asserted that she had told Detective Elliot this and could recall doing so: ‘I do remember telling him that my breast, vagina, and butt were touched’. 558 Mr Norman KC contended that, absent further astonishing co-coincidence, namely that Detective Elliott also failed properly to record what he was told about the ‘spooning’ a pattern is clearly evidenced of SS lying as it suited her, and by impugning the professionalism of the officers who were trying to help her. 559 The submission was made that the significance of this mutation of SS’s evidence regarding spooning cannot be overstated nor should it be dismissed. The prosecution opened on the basis that ‘the accused’s conduct towards the complainant relative to Count 1 commenced when the accused started spooning the complainant on the couch’. Further it was said that ‘this evidence of commencement of the spooning is led on the prosecution case, to assist your Honour in understanding the starting point’. 560 A direct connection was therefore being made between the alleged sexual touching during ‘spooning’ and what followed as part of a process of corruption involving one ongoing course of conduct. Such a submission would then allow the prosecution to argue that the mattress incident did not in fact ‘come out of the blue’ so as to mitigate SS’s complete inability to provide any explanation as to what led up to that alleged act. 561 This was despite the fact that SS conspicuously said in her affidavit of 29 January 2024 that whatever occurred during the ‘spooning’ was not necessarily the ‘casual link’ to sexual activity albeit SS was ultimately unable to explain what the word casual meant beyond saying ‘I guess would be word I would use, yes, like as a saying as regular sex on, like a regular basis.’. 562 It was argued that SS has likely told deliberate lies to the Court at trial as to what was and was not said during the taking of the initial affidavit and quite apart from what followed. What followed was that, as the investigation continued and as cross examination revealed, different and escalating allegations of seriousness were claimed by SS against the accused as time went on and even to the point of cross examination. -- 115 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 114 563 That certain details might be unearthed over time and during the investigative process is possible, however where at first no sexual acts whatsoever were associated with the spooning, and yet ultimately the same act becomes the cloak for supposedly serial and surreptitious touching of SS’s body and genitals, and even to the point of full penetrative sexual intercourse it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that SS was wholly unreliable on the issue. 564 Mr Norman KC said that the evidence of CAS and CS did not advance the prosecution case. Neither of them said they saw any sexual touching or contact between SS and the accused and what they did observe of them on the couch was not hidden. 565 The accused testified that ‘spooning’ was a physically intimate act and could not have been performed on the three-seater couch in the manner described by SS. His evidence was not that SS had not been physically affectionate towards him. On the contrary the accused testified that SS would regularly come and sit with him when he was watching television ‘like a shadow’, that she would sit in his lap at the dinner table and ‘lean against him’, and that it was ‘almost like a dog comes and jumps on your lap’ such that his own mother raised her concerns at what she saw. His description of her behaviour was entirely consistent with his comment in the pre-text call on 5 July 2023 ‘little kid, always clingy, think the world of’. 566 SS’s evidence about the ‘mattress incident’ was devoid of detail as to the lead up to it. Without any apparent warning, the accused simply got on top of SS and ground his penis against her vagina for a few minutes before having a change of heart and telling her he could not ‘do this’. She said twice in evidence that she could remember the colour and print of her underwear because this was the first time something sexual happened. That assertion could not be reconciled with her earlier evidence that there had been sexual touching of various parts of her body whilst spooning before the mattress incident. 567 VL was sleeping in a bedroom immediately adjacent to the loungeroom. On the prosecution case this behaviour was extraordinarily reckless and necessarily required complete and absolute complicity from SS to preserve the secret from her mother. Any challenge or conversation from an unwilling or confused child would have risked immediate discovery. 568 It was contended that SS’s preparedness to so confidently and repeatedly make wholly contradictory claims during trial as to the otherwise straight forward issue of what was the first sexual contact between the parties mandated the conclusion that she was an unreliable historian, and that her evidence was being tailored to the questions asked and in ways that she felt best advantaged her narrative. 569 Mr Norman KC argued that SS’s ability to recall the precise details of her bedsheets’ colour and pattern on the first occasion of penetrative sexual intercourse aged 11 was difficult to reconcile with her complete inability (at least in her -- 116 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 115 evidence in chief) to recall how her own clothing might have been removed to facilitate the alleged act of intercourse, or what actually occurred during the act other than a generic description of kissing, an allegation of pain, and an estimate that it ‘probably’ lasted 5 minutes. 570 It was suggested that one obvious explanation might be that SS (as with her underwear described in similar fine detail in relation to the mattress incident) fastened onto matters which would have been mundane, constant, and obvious such as a description of her bedsheets, in an attempt to provide ballast to a false narrative. This might be considered especially likely since the light green sheets coincidentally appeared in the photographs produced as P7. 571 A further example of SS’s internally contradictory evidence was her assertion in cross-examination that she had a positive recollection of the accused taking off her pyjama pants when pressed on the point. It was suggested that she had just invented that claim then and there. 572 SS asserted that on this first occasion of sexual intercourse she did not know what was going on. However, in cross-examination she volunteered having watched at least one pornographic video when she was 10 years old and was shown at a very young age what sex was. She described seeing a man on top of a woman in a park putting his penis in her vagina. She agreed that she knew what sex was before she met the accused. The topic of pornographic videos was volunteered by SS in response to a question about how she would even know what anal sex was. She initially said she and her siblings had seen ‘porno tapes’ but later insisted it was only one video she had seen. 573 This was another example of SS’s internally contradictory evidence. The obvious inference is that she realised that her narrative of sexual naivete had seriously unravelled in respect of a key issue and attempted to mitigate this by amending her answers by lying about how often she had seen pornography. The alternative yet again is that SS simply could not be trusted when she said something did (or did not) occur from one moment to the next. 574 Another dubious aspect of SS’s account was the sheer number of occasions upon which the accused had unprotected sex with her, despite the obvious risk in doing so. 575 SS’s claim that she lied to her mother about the real reason she needed the morning after pill did not withstand scrutiny. Her explanation that some unspecified party would remove her from her mother’s care was irrational and inconsistent with her decision to leave her mother to live with her father for six months and only return when it suited her. Further, her suggestion that both of her parents had trained her not to involve child protective services unravelled when pressed on the point. She eventually said that it was only her father who had done so. -- 117 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 116 576 Another example of SS’s unsustainable assertions was her claim that the only time she was sexually active with someone other than the accused was when she lived with her father and she had a boyfriend but once she returned to Camden Park, she was only ever sexually active with the accused. Her own diary entry (D15) recording taking J to Camden Park to have sex with him put the lie to her evidence. She was grounded for the first time as a result of this conduct making it implausible that she could simply have forgotten about this event. 577 SS testified in accordance with a presentation of sexual naivete based around a clear premise, namely that she had been sexually inexperienced, was corrupted by the accused, and effectively remained in an exclusive monogamous relationship with him for a period of years interrupted only by time spent with father. However, when presented with her own record of having sex with J at Camden Park she said, ‘Right yeah. So, I know exactly what it is and I know who it is and what month it is’. Not only did she say that, but she went on to describe this occasion in some detail including that it was at the start of year 9, occurred on the one occasion the accused had given her keys to the property and this had been the reason she had to take the bus into the city to wait for her mother and the accused to finish work before returning home. 578 SS also said (and for the first time) that she had ‘told [the accused] that pretty much the same night as he came home and he punished me and then after that I was never allowed to go back home or go back home after that I was never allowed to go back home I had to catch the bus to the city’. 579 Despite her vivid memory and recall of the incident and its consequences, when confronted with the contradiction between SS’s claim that she had ‘only ever been sexually active with [the accused]’ SS claimed she had ‘probably’ forgotten it and despite the memory having been vivid enough to make it into her diary notes as recently as 2021, after she had already been to the authorities she said ‘It was - it’s been over-a long time ago that I had sex with this person. We were going back to when I was 13 years old, so it’s not something I’m going to remember’. 580 Mr Norman KC contended that this was another clear instance where SS was badly caught out in a deliberate and intentional lie told to buttress a false narrative. Her evidence was not that she was unsure if she had sexual partners other than the accused when living at Camden Park, or that such a thing might be possible, instead it was a positive assertion that she had not. Bearing in mind SS volunteered having another and different sexual partner (or partners) when living with her father the failure to mention J cannot be ascribed to embarrassment and nor did she say so. It was said to be an irresistible conclusion that SS was seeking to mislead the Court as to both the reality of her sexual behaviour but also the circumstances of the reactions of the accused and her mother. 581 It might again be thought a matter of an extraordinary coincidence that the accused would take the exceptional risk of bringing to VL’s attention the fact that her daughter had brought a 13-year-old boy to his home for the purpose of -- 118 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 117 underage sex when he was alleged to be doing exactly the same thing every Sunday after soccer. 582 SS’s evidence of the occasion when CAS almost caught them in bed about to have sex was riddled with internal inconsistencies. SS at first said the accused had no top on that she could recall, then shortly afterwards said he did have a top on. She initially said her pants were ‘most likely’ down and shortly afterwards positively asserted that she had no underwear on. She at first said that it was the accused who picked up the ‘Noddy’ book and shortly afterwards claimed it was her who had picked up the book. It was argued that the persistent elasticity in her account was because it was untrue. 583 Further SS’s account of her sister entering the room wholly unannounced and yet having time to rearrange their position from being poised to having sexual intercourse, pants down, to the extent of obtaining a book and preparing to read stretched credulity. That CAS would or could have failed to have noticed had the parties been under the covers in any way was fanciful. The evidence of CAS not only failed to corroborate any sexual act instead the effect of her evidence is in fact to contradict that such an act had been taking place. 584 When dealing with the initial complaint evidence, Mr Norman KC argued that it had to be viewed in context and against SS’s claim that she ‘didn’t understand what kind of sex was at that time’, that she was confused and fearful of being pregnant, and that she needed to disclose this fact to the witness. 585 The implication was that so great was SS’s confusion and fear that she was unable to keep the terrible secret, that she was reporting it to MUJ within a very few weeks of the abuse starting at least on one interpretation of SS’s evidence. 586 MUJ’s account of the conversation was significantly different both in tone and content from a complaint of sexual misunderstanding or a fear of pregnancy, but rather that SS was claiming (if not boasting of) a fully consensual sexual relationship with her mother’s boyfriend. This claim (if not boast) led MUJ to initially describe what occurred as maybe being one of ‘sharing a secret’ and ‘giggling’. 587 It was also argued that of further and real significance was that the conversation was not dated by MUJ beyond being taking place at Primary School at some stage during 2006. A relevant question is whether the Court could safely exclude the reasonable possibility that such a claim was in fact made before any alleged sexual acts were said to have commenced and was borne of an infatuation with the accused and sexual jealousy of his relationship with her mother. 588 Such a claim would be entirely consistent with SS’s own diary entry ‘My jealouse come from mum and [the accused] when they would have sex I would get angery and I would make it obivose it would start a fight between me and mum I -- 119 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 118 always thought there was something wrong with me and that why [the accused] didn’t pick me’. 589 The explanation given for this diary entry in cross examination was that SS had only been meaning to refer to the fact that the accused was not choosing to have sex with her there and then but instead was having sex with her mother. The implication of the note was that SS was well aware of what sex involved, resented her mother’s relationship with the accused, and was angry that he had not in fact chosen to have sex with her. Such an explanation was wholly incongruent with a suggestion of sexual naivete, or tolerance of abuse through fear or misunderstanding, but instead suggested that she was obsessed with the accused. 590 If the accused was already having sex with SS, he must necessarily have already ‘picked’ SS as well. Further if he was in fact already having sexual intercourse with her this would make a nonsense of the suggestion that there was something wrong with her. When faced with such inconsistencies SS defaulted to her confused feelings towards the accused and despite claiming that she was already having sexual intercourse with him, and jealous of him having sexual intercourse with her mother, and despite wanting to have sexual intercourse with him that somehow at the same time she said ‘I didn’t understand the concept of a relationship let alone sexual activity at that age and wanting to do it or not’. 591 If indeed SS did not understand the concept of sexual activity, or of wanting to have sexual intercourse, that was completely irreconcilable with her own diary entry and suggestion that she was sexually jealous of her mother and was angry precisely because the accused had not picked her for sex. 592 In relation to the laundry incident and the tickling incident, MUJ’s recollection of these occasions was, as she frankly conceded, coloured by SS’s confession that she was having sex with the accused. The tickling incident itself as described (only) by MUJ was not hidden or overtly sexual. SS’s description of what happened in the laundry was limited contextually and sounded mechanical and rehearsed. Further, there were internal inconsistencies in her account. She initially said she could not recall why the accused took her away or what he said. In cross-examination, she said she actually remembered that the accused took her away because he wanted to talk to her privately, just the two of them. 593 SS’s account of masturbating the accused on one occasion whilst in her mother’s bed with her mother was inconsistent with her claim in her statement dated 5 January 2021 that the accused made her do things to him while her mother was asleep next to them. In evidence, SS claimed for the first time that she had used moisturiser ‘to lube his circumcised penis to help him ejaculate’ and that she had taken the accused’s penis ‘half out’ of his underwear which he was still wearing. 594 When pressed about why these details did not appear in any of her statements, she appeared to suggest that the Police had deliberately failed to record what she -- 120 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 119 had told them about the lotion and handling the accused’s penis but then when asked by her Honour whether this was her claim, she said she did not recall telling police this. It was contended that SS was attempting to deflect criticism from herself for the omission but chose not to pursue this in response to direct questions from the bench. Regardless of the reason, the result remains the same. SS was a consistently unreliable historian in respect of crucial detail said to constitute material particulars of the charged offence. 595 The conduct as described was overtly brazen, reckless and risky. SS did not explain how the act might have been shielded or hidden from VL. Instead the implication must be that the parties could somehow be confident that the obtaining of the lotion, its application to the accused’s penis, the handling of the bottle and the accused’s penis, the masturbation itself all took place openly, over a matter of many minutes and with VL co-incidentally sleeping soundly throughout, none of which had the ring of truth. 596 Further, VL’s evidence did not corroborate SS’s account or even the opportunity for this to have occurred. VL said that the accused never slept in her own bed with the accused, save for one occasion when she had discovered SS alone in the bedroom with a boy named A, a friend of CS. On this occasion SS had not been between her mother and the accused but had been on VL’s side of the bed and therefore in a position where the alleged offence could not have occurred. 597 In addressing the prosecution case that the accused would have sex with SS at Blyth Street when they were alone, Mr Norman KC said on the evidence of SS it happened when there was a coincidence of both CS and CAS being away from the house and VL was asleep in bed. It was submitted that the likelihood that VL regularly went to bed during the working week as early as 7.00 pm and 8.00 pm stretched credulity, bearing in mind the process of returning from work, and demands of parenthood and running the household. 598 Far more plausible was VL’s evidence that whilst she would try and get to bed as early as she could it was still ‘probably about 8.30 , 9, o’clock on average’. Further there was no evidence VL was taking sleeping draughts or even that she was a particularly deep or sound sleeper. To the contrary she said had trouble sleeping such that she would wake in the early hours. 599 Accordingly the opportunity for sexual acts to occur at Blyth Street were therefore unlikely to have been anything like as frequent in practice as the SS claimed, and in reality would have posed extraordinary risks of discovery by both VL who had sleeping issues and/or the unexpected return of either or both of the CAS and CS. 600 It was contended that the Valentine’s Day cards whilst ostensibly anonymous in accordance with tradition appear entirely undisguised. The accused’s handwriting was clearly used and recognisable. Those cards and the birthday cards had a playful theme, again entirely in accordance with the defence witness BC’s -- 121 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 120 description of the accused’s sense of humour and positive and extrovert character. The only potential significance is that they were kept at all. To have kept such cards from a trusted father figure, who made SS feel loved and special, and was thoughtful enough to send the cards might be considered entirely expected. Conversely to keep such mementos from an alleged abuser might seem curious if not potentially obsessive. 601 SS’s account of having sexual intercourse with the accused on the carpeted floor of the master bedroom at Camden Park on the day he got the keys was threadbare in detail. Other than a generic reference to the accused ‘most likely’ kissing her neck and touching her breasts and bottom there was no compelling detail provided. The photographs of the accused taken by VL on the day he obtained the keys put the lie to SS’s account. 602 Mr Norman KC submitted that SS’s account of the opportunities that existed for sexual acts to have occurred at the Camden Park address after Sunday soccer matches unravelled significantly in cross examination. SS suggested that sexual acts took place on around 50 occasions after both home and away games. Whilst VL accepted the possibility that SS went to a soccer match alone with the accused it was not something she ever noticed. The suggestion that SS attending around fifty soccer matches with the accused and being away from home for several hours each Sunday simply escaped her mother’s attention was fanciful. Further, such a frequency of attendance would have been noticed by the accused’s team mates LE and BR because the accused would either have left straight after the game or would have been accompanied by SS at the club afterwards. 603 There being no suggestion of false testimony by VL, BR or LE, there are only two possibilities: three witnesses failed to notice the fact that SS was attending what must have effectively been every match the accused played or at best she has grossly misrepresented the number of times she went to see the accused play. 604 Moreover, when confronted with her own diary entry suggesting that Sunday was in fact one of the only days when the VL would spend time with the children and therefore precisely because the accused was away playing soccer, SS gave no plausible explanation for what she herself had written. 605 SS was also noticeably unable to identify a single away venue that she might have travelled to with the accused and denied that he would regularly stay with his friends after a match and socialize in the clubhouse. SS also denied that any children were every present, insisting that ‘no one ever brought their kids’. In contrast, VL said that on the few occasions when she had attended the soccer matches the demographic was ‘Families, men. Sometimes there would be drinks at the pub afterwards, so older people, so but usually while the games were playing, it was largely men and some of their partners and children.’ 606 It was submitted that there was at least a reasonable possibility that SS had deliberately persisted with lies about the number of occasions that she -- 122 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 121 accompanied the accused to soccer games and for the obvious reason of misrepresenting the opportunity for sex to have occurred. The pattern of exaggeration and falsification persisted. 607 The sexual activity on the first night SS returned to Camden Park was again described in generic detail. What was said to be particularly curious and implausible was that when she got upset and confessed to having had sex with other people whilst living at her father’s, which felt like a betrayal, the accused’s reaction was to tell her that he expected her to have sex with other people and he did not seem bothered and they then ended up having sex together on the couch. The accused’s apparent lack of concern and indeed acceptance of her having sex with other people stood in stark contrast to his reaction to her subsequent disclosure to him that she had sex with J in the Camden Park house. 608 SS’s evidence that the accused would take her home after work have sex with her and then return to the city in time to collect VL after work was theoretically possible, because on any given day when VL’s movements were assured it might have been possible for the parties to have gone to and from the city in the time allowed. However, what seems extremely unlikely is that the opportunity would have arisen in any real pattern allowing for the scale of abuse alleged. The vagaries of the court day for both the accused and VL were such that mitigated against the practice, quite apart from the uncertainty of traffic both leaving the city and on the return journey. Had SS or the accused ever once failed to return to the city in time to collect VL the risk of delay and discovery was obvious. That the accused should have taken such a risk on a daily basis was fanciful. 609 SS’s diary entry of 4 March 2021 (D16) was inconsistent with such a practice. Instead, it clearly suggested that having been grounded for bringing J back to Clifton Street for sex she was permanently forbidden to return before both VL and the accused had finished work: ‘ I thought Drew was my best friend so I told him and he got really angry and told my mum some story and I was ground (sic) for a month I wasn’t allowed to go home after school I had to catch a bus to the City, wait around until mum and Drew finished work, then Drew would drive me and mum home this went on for years.’ 610 Moreover, VL said that when living at Camden Park they would invariably travel to and from work together in the one car. 611 It was said that SS’s account of sexual intercourse occurring after school was again lacking in any material detail and smacked of an attempt to identify a theoretical opportunity for sex to have taken place on multiple and regular occasions, which on close scrutiny simply could not and did not arise. 612 SS’s account of anal sex with the accused was internally inconsistent. She initially said examination in chief ‘there were times where we did anal sex’. She then said they only did it ‘one time that I know of’. -- 123 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 122 613 In cross examination SS had no real explanation for why details of the alleged anal sex appeared in her affidavit given at the end of January 2024, only for her to state in her next affidavit a few weeks later (3 April 2024) that she in fact recalled nothing of any act of anal sex beyond having a memory of pain in her anus when travelling in the car to collect her mother. Taken at face value SS’s memory was better before it became worse before it became better once more by the time of evidence in chief. Such a starkly fragmented and inconsistent process of recollection was a cause for real concern quite apart from acute problems of particularization for the prosecution. 614 It was contended that another highly questionable example of SS’s evidence was the allegation of multiple acts of bondage mentioned for the very first time in an affidavit provided on 26 October 2025 just a few days before trial. 615 SS said she had been ‘trained like a sex doll’ and that there had been ‘several times’ that the accused had tied her to a bed at the Camden Park house with his work neck ties, that she was ‘a hundred percent clear’ that the acts had occurred and had a ‘good memory’ of such acts taking place. When asked in cross examination the obvious question as to why she had not made any mention whatsoever until the week before trial of something that happened repeatedly, and that she had a clear memory of S said: ‘This is something I have suppressed for a while and this is something I don’t like to think about because it makes-it triggers me.’ 616 To have forgotten what on any view would have been highly memorable, sophisticated, and distinctive sexual acts during almost the entirety of the police investigation was fanciful. Instead when seen in context alongside the escalating allegations of sexual activity claimed regarding the incidence of ‘spooning’, the same pattern is again revealed of SS embroidering her evidence so as to aggravate the seriousness of the allegations made against the accused. 617 In relation to the uncharged sexual offending in Queensland, it was contended that it too lacked any real detail and was perfunctory and generic. The detail that was fixed on (the chest of drawers) was a piece of furniture that coincidentally appeared in the police photographs (P7) When pressed in cross-examination as what it was about the state of the beds on the occasion of the alleged sexual intercourse that could possibly have caused concern as to being ‘messed up’ SS immediately embarked upon what it is respectfully submitted was a bizarre, rambling, and plainly untruthful explanation as to the accused’s grandmother’s bed making habits which were said to reflect those involved in making up nursing home or hospital beds. 618 The description of the sexual activity in the back of the accused’s work car was, again generic. It was contended that there were obvious parallels with the alleged mattress incident with the accused yet again allegedly lying on top of SS. By way of further notable coincidence this last alleged episode of sexual activity -- 124 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 123 at Moana Beach ends with SS saying: ‘I can’t do this anymore’ much as the mattress incident was said to have ended with the accused saying: ‘I can’t do this’. 619 The distance from 20 Platform Avenue Sheidow Park to Moana Beach was estimated to be 20.6 kilometres. As might be expected (and as explained by the accused in evidence) any use of a government vehicle required a proper accounting for the distances travelled when using work vehicles to travel on circuit. The accused must have risked not only returning the vehicle with an additional 40 kilometres of travel as well as being seen in that government vehicle with SS both on the journey and when at the beach. On any view this might be seen as unnecessarily reckless given there was no obvious need for the accused to take the risk of using a government vehicle for such purposes when he had other vehicles available for the alleged trip. When pressed on this in cross-examination SS stated (and for the first time) that the government vehicle was taken because it was in the driveway and blocking the accused’s other vehicle(s). Thus, the implication, if SS was to be believed is that the accused took the risk of discovery for no other reason than because it was preferable to simply moving the Government car off the driveway. 620 Whilst such a scenario might be possible, it hardly seems likely particularly in view of SS’s evidence that the accused was in fact careful to hide his activities with SS. Whilst the failure to mention previously the detail of the accused’s own car being blocked in the garage by the government car in the driveway in isolation might be dismissed as insignificant the provision of this additional detail again conformed to SS’s pattern of supplementing her account with details invented on the spot during cross examination. 621 In relation to SS’s account of the accused being circumcised, Mr Norman KC said this could not be elevated to the level of esoteric knowledge. There were many routes to such knowledge especially within a family context and particularly when the accused testified it caused him no embarrassment to acknowledge that medical fact. 622 If SS had been able to allege some esoteric and particular knowledge of the accused’s penis or genitals the situation might well be different. For example, had SS been able to describe the size or shape or pigmentation of the accused’s genitals in any way this may have had some probative value. Despite the years of enthusiastic sexual activity alleged between them, the fact that SS did not provide any description whatsoever of, for example, the shape and size of accused’s penis, whether flaccid or erect, or as to the shape and size of his testicles, or even as to the fact and extent of any of his pubic hair was, in contrast, extremely telling. 623 It was contended that the two pretext calls were extremely significant both in terms of tone and content. The conversation signally lacked any sexual frisson or tension between the parties consistent with any species of abusive relationship. To the contrary both SS and the accused appeared to regard each other and the past with real fondness. Her own presentation was simply extraordinary regardless of -- 125 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 124 the accused’s innocence or guilt and however the question of tone and content is analysed. In particular SS’s assertion that ‘I was scared making those calls. I didn’t know what to say’ was not borne out by the tone or content of the calls. At no stage did SS sound confused, frightened or struggling with what to say to the accused. 624 SS was able knowingly to participate in a Police-led investigatory technique on two occasions and sustain conversations with her abuser in the knowledge that he was soon to be arrested and prosecuted for extremely serious offences. That she was at the same time able to state in that same call that the accused always made her ‘feel loved and special’ and ‘there were no hard feelings’ and that they should ‘catch up’ suggested an astonishing degree of performance. Whilst SS again sought to explain away this contradiction on the basis of the complexity of her feelings towards the accused this narrative unravelled when she was pressed on the issue of ‘catching up’. On any construction of the evidence this must have been a lie, and one knowingly told by SS, since the parties were never in fact going to be meeting again save in a court setting. 625 SS’s explanation that she discussed ‘catching up’ with the accused because of her experience in ‘customer service’ bordered on the risible. What was truly disconcerting was the sheer ease with which SS discussed such ‘catching up’. 626 The prosecution submission that this could be explained on the basis that SS loved the accused and he had treated her well as a child was fanciful and highlighted the stark contradiction which lurked at the heart of the prosecution case. Even were it the case that SS previously believed that she loved the accused so as to explain her consent to the sexual acts alleged, the pre-text calls were being made by her years later as part of the police investigation and in the knowledge that an arrest was to be made for extremely serious offences. To suggest that the her ‘love’ for the accused nevertheless persisted to the point of the pre-text calls so as to enable her to ‘put aside’ years of sexual abuse when telling him that he always made her feel ‘loved and special’ and while discussing ‘catching up’ defies human experience and the Court’s understanding of such offences. 627 Put even more simply none of the distress exhibited by SS in testifying about the alleged abuse was apparent when she was actually talking to her alleged abuser. By way of marked contrast, the accused’s presentation during the pretext calls was precisely as might have been expected if innocent of the charges, namely he reacts with surprise, enthusiasm, and candour as to his domestic situation. There was no moment where any of his answers seemed guarded or cynical. In the same way for the accused to have (for example) segued so seamlessly into answers about deciding that he could become a father as a result of his relationship with SS and his favourite memory of her being ‘kicking the ball around the backyard’ would be arguably sociopathic. 628 Mr Norman KC next dealt with SS’s account of suppressing her memories. -- 126 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 125 629 SS explained that her mental processes and memories had been profoundly and permanently affected by her experiences at the hands of her father. She said she had trained her brain to forget things and suppress them. The accuracy or otherwise of her claim that she has been able to ‘train her brain’ to suppress traumatic memories and experiences is impossible for the Court to fully assess without the benefit of expert evidence. 630 It was contended that as a logical proposition it is difficult to understand how a witness could ever be certain as to whether a memory had or had not been suppressed or whether it ever existed in the first place. Rather what was really being suggested was that SS believed that other and different things must have happened to her, but that she no longer recalled them, whether through some process of deliberate training and/or psychological self-preservation. Mr Norman KC noted that it was not for the defence to prove that her memory and cognitive functioning had been impaired by her experiences of domestic abuse. Bearing in mind the burden and standard of proof it was for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that her mental processes have not been materially affected by her experiences so as to render her evidence both reliable and credible beyond a reasonable doubt. 631 In the particular circumstances of this case whether the prosecution can satisfy the court that SS was an accurate and reliable historian despite what she went through at the hands of her father then, and continues to go through now, would depend on the nature and extent of those experiences. The involvement of the authorities seems to have been a constant in her life and continued during the time of the allegations. As such the impact and involvement of her father upon her mental health cannot be said to be divorced from the material time. 632 In seeking to have admitted in the trial proper the detailed occurrence reports, Mr Norman KC argued that those reports were not to be considered in a vacuum, and the fact than an allegation was made on a particular date and at a particular time, and the fact that the allegation was made against or by a particular individual regardless of its truth assumed a particular relevance in this matter. The relevance was articulated as follows: • The existence of contemporaneous reports corroborated the evidence given by witnesses of the events themselves. The accused gave evidence about being followed and threatened by NS during the time he is now alleged to have been abusing SS and that the Police had been consequently involved. The reports were therefore directly admissible in corroboration of the fact that such complaints were indeed made at a particular date and time and go to both the prosecution witness accounts and the accused’s reliability and credibility in respect of his evidence that such reports were in fact made. Examples of this include the accused’s description of an incident in Wright Street as referenced in VDD33, the recording by CS of the threats made to VL and the accused referenced in VDD 34 and the car chase incident referenced in VDD 41. • SS (at least initially) positively alleged that she had been urged not to involve the authorities by both her parents for fear of the family being separated, the number and so the existence of the reports was relevant to her reliability and credibility on that issue. -- 127 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 126 • The reports show that the accused was regularly attempting to involve police in matters concerning SS’s father and thereby his family. This persistently risked the involvement of the Child Protection Services who might have sought to interview the SS at any time. • The report referenced in VDD40 corroborated the evidence of the accused that NS falsely accused of threatening to obtain a firearm to use against him. 633 The relevance of the fact that NS was prepared to make false claims to the police against the accused had to be considered against: a. the fact that NS had during the time period of the allegations threatened ‘to get’ the accused; b. During the time period of the allegations NS had been involved in a custody dispute with VL, and used LL as a vehicle to make false allegations of inappropriate physical conduct between the accused and SS as evidenced by VL; c. LL’s ongoing concern as expressed in the week before trial that SS has been manipulated by NS expressly for the purposes of revenge against the accused because of his relationship with VL; d. SS was in contact with her father during trial itself. 634 In summary it was contended that NS’s hostility towards the accused for ever having a relationship with VL appears to have been longstanding, profound, accompanied by threats and contemporaneous with the manipulation of various legal processes. 635 For the prosecution to suggest that there is no evidence that NS may have manipulated SS flew in the face of everything known about the history of the case let alone their witness LL’s own concerns. That a prosecution witness should have felt sufficiently anxious about the integrity of the trial process so as to pass on these concerns to police immediately before trial was said to be extraordinary and possibly unique in the Court’s experience. In the same way LL’s presentation as a former journalist the Court may feel was intelligent, passionate, informed, and utterly sincere. Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR does not stand for the proposition that all lay opinion is de facto inadmissible. LL had an obvious and particular familiarity with both NS, SS and VL, the history of the matter, their characters, and their relationship quite apart from the involvement of the parties in the police investigation and his opinion is clearly informed by the same. To suggest that his concern that his granddaughter was being manipulated by her father in revenge for the accused’s relationship with VL should be dismissed as entirely irrelevant would be truly to usurp the function of the trier of fact. As to what weight ultimately should be accorded to LL’s concerns, this must be exclusively a matter for the Court. 636 In assessing whether it is reasonably possible that NS manipulated SS into making false allegations against the accused, SS’s claims that she was ‘not close’ -- 128 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 127 to her father, ‘has not talked about the case with him’, and ‘doesn’t want him involved’ flew in the face of other evidence she gave. For example, she said that she had to look after her father since he had been in and out of gaol from 2018 and she was still in contact with him until the day she was cross-examined and that she had spoken to him the night before giving evidence when he checked up on her to see if she was okay. 637 According to LL, NS knew that SS had made allegations of rape and the fact that his revelation to LL was ‘almost triumphal’ was as crucial as it was sinister. NS told LL that the police were coming to visit him. This was also highly significant especially in light of the SS’s claim that despite being in daily contact with her father that she had not talked to her father about the case at all and she did not want to have him involved. 638 Mr Norman KC contended that it was highly unlikely that VL, CS or CAS would have known that SS alleged rape let alone passed that information on to NS or who police intended to approach. It was argued that the irresistible inference was that SS had indeed discussed with her father exactly what she had falsely alleged against the accused to the Police as well as who SAPOL were intending to approach as witnesses, and when. 639 Finally, it was contended that NS exerted and continues to exert a considerable, continuing, and unhealthy influence upon SS and its impact upon these proceedings was difficult to quantify. In the same way it was impossible to safely dismiss. 640 Mr Norman KC then addressed the defence case describing the accused’s account of how his relationship with VL and their family began and developed as measured and coherent. His account of being repeatedly threatened by NS was corroborated by several of the prosecution witnesses. 641 Relying upon the detailed occurrence reports (if admitted) Mr Norman KC argued that they corroborated the accused’s evidence that he repeatedly went to the authorities in seeking help to protect SS and her family and in a way entirely inconsistent with someone hoping to hide evidence of his own criminal offending. Examples of this included the Wright Street incident (VDD33), the recording by CS of the threats made to VL and the accused (VDD 34) and the car chase incident referenced in (VDD 41). 642 The accused’s explanation as to ‘spooning’ was logical. Namely there was indeed cuddling but consistent with the child’s wants and needs and further consistent with what VL saw and thought appropriate. Through observation and vigilance, VL judged the relationship between SS and the accused to be wholesome and benign in accordance with his evidence. 643 It was not unreasonable for the accused to have been guided by VL in terms of the appropriate levels of interaction with her daughter, given his age and the fact -- 129 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 128 he did not have children. That SS might and likely did crave attention, both physical and emotional seems obvious and appears in the diary references which at the very least revealed significant jealousy of her mother’s relationship with the accused. 644 The accused’s account of going to bed at Blyth Street at approximately 8.30 pm to 9.00 pm accorded with VL’s evidence on this topic. 645 The accused’s account of regular attendance at soccer training twice a week and matches on Sundays and SS rarely attending matches was corroborated by LE and BR. There was an incentive for the accused to attend trainings regularly. On the accused’s account twice a week he was required to be at soccer practice by 6.00pm. This made a nonsense of SS’s evidence of the frequency and timing of the occasions the accused drove her home from the city to have sex with her and then return to pick up VL. VL’s evidence that between June/July 2006 to October 2008 she was invariably working from 9.00 pm until 5.00 pm during the week fitted with the accused’s evidence that they would drive home together and he could make it to soccer practice on time. This would have allowed time for the parties to return to Camden Street and for the accused to be at soccer practice by 6.00 pm. 646 It follows that SS’s account of regularly having sexual intercourse after school with the accused, between the hours of 4.30 pm and 6.00 pm was demonstrably false and a lie. This was why SS recorded in her diary that her mother would only show interest in the children when the accused was at soccer. 647 It was submitted that at no stage under cross examination was the accused’s account seriously disturbed, nor had the prosecution been able to identify any contradictions or inconsistencies beyond disputing his assertion that it would not have been physically possible for SS and the accused to lie down in the ‘spooning’ position suggested. Properly understood the accused was not suggesting that he could not lie down on the couches, but rather that his height and the dimensions of the couches were such that had he done so his knees would have protruded so as to prevent SS lying directly in front of him. In the absence of evidence being provided by the prosecution of the length and width of the couches concerned, it was difficult to see how the matter could be safely resolved on the basis of brief witness observations made the best part of 20 years ago. Findings of fact on agreed or unchallenged evidence 648 I make the following findings of fact: I find proved the facts agreed in P28 and therefore find: 1. SS was born on 12 April 1994 and was a child at the time of the alleged offending. 2. The accused was born on 4 March 1982 and was an adult at the time of the alleged offending. -- 130 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 129 3. VL rented the house at Blyth Street, Parkside from 7 May 2005 until 6 June 2007. 4. The accused was the registered owner of the unit at Clifton Street, Camden Park from 28 August 2006 until 10 November 2008. 5. The accused and VL were the registered owners of the house on Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park from 10 December 2008 to 30 July 2013. 6. On 13 March 2007 the accused bought a silver Jeep Tourer (2006 model) which he sold on 28 April 2008. 7. The accused was a registered player with the Plympton Bulldogs Soccer Club in the Sunday Division 3A League and played for this club across the 2005- 2007 and 2009 season. 8. 30 January 2009 was a Friday. 9. 6 February 2009 was a Friday. 649 I find proved the following additional agreed fact: 10. The distance from 20 Platform Avenue Sheidow Park to Moana is approximately 20.6 kilometres. 650 I make the following findings of fact on the unchallenged evidence led at trial: 1. VL was married to NS and had three children, CS, CAS and SS. CAS was born on 25 December 1990 and CS on 23 March 1992. 2. NS was violent towards VL during the course of their marriage and the violence was at times witnessed by all three children. VL obtained restraining orders in South Australia and other states against NS. NS has been convicted of drug trafficking on two occasions and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. 3. The accused was in a sexual relationship with VL from October 2005 until October 2010. 4. The accused was at all material times employed as a Magistrate’s clerk. He was suspended from his employment following his arrest. 5. The accused was authorised to use a Courts Administration Authority fleet vehicle registration XKH 834 between 30 January 2009 and 6 February 2009. 6. The accused has no prior convictions. The accused is a person of good character. 7. When their relationship commenced, VL was working as a lawyer in the Youth Court. 8. At the time the relationship commenced the accused was renting a unit in Glenelg East and VL was living in the house on Blyth Street, Parkside with SS and CS. CAS moved in around December 2005 and left in April 2006 to live with NS. CAS and SS shared a bedroom and CS had his own bedroom. The accused slept with VL in her bedroom. -- 131 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 130 9. P23 is an accurate floorplan of the Blyth Street house. 10. In the lounge room of the Blyth Street house were two couches, one was a three- seater (depicted in P2) and the other a two-seater. 11. P2 depicts SS, CAS and CS on the three-seater couch on 25 December 2006. 12. There was no lock on the bedroom which CS and CAS shared in the Blyth Street house. 13. Shortly after their relationship commenced, the accused started staying over at the Blyth Street house regularly. Until he, VL and SS moved into the unit in Camden Park, he was effectively living in the house at Blyth Street. By 6 June 2007, VL, the accused and SS had moved into the unit at Camden Park. 14. P6 is an accurate floor plan of the unit at Clifton Street Camden Park. Photographs on the unit are in P7. The couch and beds depicted in those photographs were in the unit when SS, VL and the accused were living there. D22 shows the accused at the entrance to the Camden Park unit and inside the unit. 15. During the period of the alleged offending, the accused was in a relationship with, and in a position of authority over SS, akin to that of a stepfather. 16. For a period of approximately 6 months in 2008, SS lived with NS. 17. The accused has a circumcised penis. 18. In custody proceedings in the Family Court, LL filed an affidavit in which he said that the accused had touched SS in an inappropriate tactile manner. 19. The accused attended soccer trainings which were twice weekly (on either Tuesdays and Thursdays or Wednesdays and Fridays 6.00pm-8.00pm) during soccer season which was March until September. He played soccer every Sunday during the season. 20. The maximum number of soccer games that the accused could have attended on a Sunday in the period during which SS alleged she was having sexual intercourse with the accused (after he bought the unit at Camden Park and before they moved in) was less than 20. 21. During the period of the alleged offending, the accused’s parents lived in the Glasshouse Mountains, Queensland and his grandparents owned a beach house at Dicky Beach. 22. P8 contains photographs of the beach house at Dicky Beach. The accused’s father can be seen in the first photograph. 23. The accused and VL attended BC’s wedding in Queensland on 26 June 2008. The accused was BC’s best man. The accused flew on his own to Queensland prior to the wedding. 24. SS went to Queensland in June 2008 with VL. VL, the accused and SS returned to Adelaide on QF661 on 30 June 2008. 25. SS, VL, the accused and CS went to Queensland for one of the Christmas holidays. -- 132 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 131 26. The accused’s handwriting appears on the cards in P4. 27. VL’s handwriting appears on the first birthday card in P5 and the accused’s handwriting appears on the second birthday card in P5. 28. On 23 June 2023 and 5 July 2023 SS telephoned the accused and the calls were recorded by police. SS read and signed the written instructions on how to operate the recording equipment before she made each telephone call. The accused was unaware that the calls were being recorded. 29. SS attended Christies Beach Police Station on 18 March 2020 and spoke to SC Page. SC Page made notes on the police computer system of his conversation with SS while he was having that conversation. SS made statements to police on 5 January 2021, 29 January 2024, 3 April 2024 and 26 October 2025. 30. SS compiled the handwritten notes in D13, D14, D15, D16, D17, D18 and D 19. Preliminary matters Significant forensic disadvantage 651 Although I am not required to give myself a direction of the kind prescribed by s 34CB of the Evidence Act, the existence of a forensic disadvantage is a matter that should normally be taken into account by a Judge sitting alone in the course of considering whether the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.594 652 The issue of significant forensic disadvantage as referred to in s 34CB of the EA was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Cassebohm,595 R v Maiolo (No 2),596 R v W, PK597 and in R v R, PA.598 In R v Cassebohm, Doyle CJ said: I consider that it is sufficient for a trial judge to conclude that the lost or missing or unavailable material is likely to have assisted the defence of a charge, even though one cannot say just how, and even though one cannot be certain that that is so. 653 These factors reduce the accused’s ability to effectively conduct his case including to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in a way so as to cast doubt upon issues of credibility and reliability. 654 I am satisfied that the accused has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage by reason of the delay in the prosecution of this charge. The disadvantage suffered relates to the following evidence relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case: 1. The allegation that the accused spooned SS on both the three-seater and two-seater couches in the lounge room at Blyth Street. 594 R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382 at [21] – [22]; De Sa v The Queen [2021] SASCFC 22 at [113]. 595 (2011) 109 SASR 465. 596 (2013) 117 SASR 1. 597 [2016] SASCFC 5. 598 [2019] SASCFC 19. -- 133 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 132 2. The allegation that four or five nights a week following SS’s disclosure to the accused of having sex with J she caught a bus to the city; at 4.30pm on the dot the accused left work and then drove her home to Camden Park, had sex with her for 20-30 minutes and then drove back to the city in time to pick up VL at 6.00pm. 3. The allegation that the accused used a government fleet vehicle to drive SS from Sheidow Park to Moana Beach and back. 4. The allegation that VL went to bed between 7.00-8.00pm on weeknights. 655 Had the charge been prosecuted in a timely manner the accused would have had the ability to: 1. Access and measure the three-seater and two-seater couches to corroborate his evidence that it was not physically possible to spoon SS in the way she described. 2. Obtain records of soccer training times, schedules of attendance, match cards and other documentation capable of corroborating his account of his attendance twice weekly at soccer training and games on weekends. Receipts or bank records for purchases of food or drink at the Plympton Bulldogs Club would have been available to corroborate the accused’s account of staying after the game for food and drinks and to watch the next game. Match schedules would have been available recording the location of the away games during the relevant period. 3. Obtain records or documents from the accused’s workplace, such as transcript of court hearings in which the accused was involved as a Magistrate’s clerk, to assist in corroborating the accused’s evidence regarding his departure time from work and the variation in departure time depending on the workload on the relevant day. Receipts from the carparks used by the accused could have assisted in corroborating his account that he would wait for VL and they would travel home together and refuting SS’s account that there was sufficient time to travel to Camden Park, have sexual intercourse for 20-30 minutes and return to the city by 6.00pm. 4. Obtain mileage/trip/odometer schedules for all government fleet vehicles used by the accused during the relevant period could have assisted in corroborating his account that he did not use a government vehicle to drive SS from Sheidow Park to Moana Beach and back. 5. Obtain documents capable of establishing that VL was not in bed asleep as early as suggested by SS such at records of emails sent or telephone calls made by VL. 656 I will take into account this significant forensic disadvantage when determining whether the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Initial complaint 657 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 SS such that it enhances her credibility because of the circumstances in which it was made, its content and any consistency between it and her evidence about the relevant events. In this case, the initial complaint evidence does not explain how -- 134 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 133 all of the allegations came to light because the report to police about all of the alleged offending was made 14 years later. 658 I note that in this case, SS said she made the complaint to MUJ after she had turned 12 years of age and the sexual intercourse with the accused had been going on for about three or four months. MUJ said that the conversation was definitely when they were in year 7. 659 Accordingly, and depending on the findings I make regarding make, the initial complaint is only capable of demonstrating consistency of conduct and account with respect to any offending alleged to have preceded it. It cannot demonstrate consistency of conduct or account with respect to the alleged offending which post-dated it. Discreditable conduct 660 I am satisfied that the following evidence led without objection in the trial, if accepted, falls into the category of discreditable conduct evidence: 1. The accused being naked in bed under the covers with SS. 2. Uncharged sexual acts in Queensland. 661 The permissible use of the evidence of the accused being naked in the bed with SS in the preparatory stages of having sex with her is to demonstrate the nature of their physical relationship at that time. I cannot use this evidence to reason that the accused is more likely to have engaged in any or all of the unlawful sexual acts alleged in the charge. 662 The permissible use of the evidence of the uncharged sexual intercourse in Queensland and associated sexual activity is to demonstrate the nature of their relationship at that time and to show that the sexual relationship was ongoing. Another permissible use is to establish that the accused was prepared to act upon his sexual interest in SS when the opportunity arose notwithstanding the risk of detection. As a circumstantial fact, if accepted, it would permit a conclusion that the accused is likely to have committed the charged acts. However, I cannot reason that if the accused committed the uncharged acts in Queensland, that alone means he is more likely to have committed the unlawful sexual acts the subject of the charge. 663 All other uncharged offending is part and parcel of the charged offending and if I accept that evidence, it does not require a separate discreditable conduct direction. It is conduct which was so connected to the elements or particulars of the charged offence as to be properly regarded as part of it: Heng v The King.599 664 If I accepted the evidence of CAS and CS of the spooning or cuddling, they said they witnessed, which involved no allegation of sexual touching, I would not 599 [2025] SASCA 57, [60]. -- 135 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 134 be satisfied that this is discreditable conduct. On their evidence, the conduct was not hidden and CAS said she did not witness any sexual contact between the accused and SS. The only parts of their bodies that were touching were SS’s back against the accused’s front. CAS thought it was odd that they were physically affectionate in such a short space of time and he was not family. CS saw SS lying on the couch with her back to the accused’s front with a blanket over them when they were watching a movie. VL or CAS were present. He described that as inappropriate. Their views are not determinative of the issue. 665 For a putative stepfather to SS, someone she said made her feel special and loved, to lie physically close to her on a couch in full view of anyone walking past or those in the room is not, in my view, inappropriate physical contact to the point of being discreditable. Admissibility of LL’s opinion evidence and VD-D31 – VD-D42, 666 LL’s evidence, over objection but taken de bene esse, was that he had asked police to consider an alternative scenario, namely that NS was manipulating SS out of vengeance against the accused as a form of revenge because the accused was seeing his woman and children and taking his place. I have concluded that this is inadmissible opinion evidence and I will disregard it for the purposes of considering the motive put to SS for fabricating her account. 667 There is no dispute that VD-D31 – VD-D42 are genuine business records of SAPOL. 668 Section 53 of the Evidence Act (1929) SA provides: (1) An apparently genuine document purporting to be a business record— (a) is admissible in evidence without further proof; and (b) is evidence of a fact stated in the record, or any fact that may be inferred from the record (whether the inference arises wholly from the matter contained in the record, or from that matter in conjunction with other evidence). (2) A document must not be admitted in evidence under subsection (1) if the court is of the opinion— (a) that the person by whom, or at whose direction, the document was prepared can and should be called by the party tendering the document to give evidence of the matters contained in the document; or (b) that the evidentiary weight of the document is slight and is outweighed by the prejudice that might result to any of the parties from the admission of the document in evidence; or (c) that it would be otherwise contrary to the interests of justice to admit the document in evidence. -- 136 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 135 (3) For the purpose of determining the evidentiary weight (if any) of a document admitted in evidence under subsection (1), consideration must be given to the source from which the document is produced, the safeguards (if any) that have been taken to ensure its accuracy, and any other relevant matters. (4) In this section— business means business, occupation, trade or calling and includes the business of any governmental or local governmental body or instrumentality; business record means— (a) any book of account or other document prepared or used in the ordinary course of a business for the purpose of recording any matter relating to the business; or (b) any reproduction of any such record by photographic, photostatic, lithographic or other like process. 669 Evidence has been led in this trial from Senior Constable Page regarding occurrence reports establishing that they are police documents created as a result of inputting notes into the police computer system. Having examined the documents I am satisfied that they are apparently genuine business records held by SAPOL. The documents were disclosed to defence whilst the accused was giving evidence. I infer and find they were located and produced by Detective Lee Elliott. Each document records that they were printed on 4 November 2025 by Detective Elliott. As such I am not of the opinion that that the person by whom, or at whose direction, the document was prepared can and should be called by the party tendering the document to give evidence of the matters contained in the document. 670 In determining whether the evidentiary weight is slight and outweighed by any prejudice that might result to the prosecution and whether it would be otherwise contrary to the interests of justice to admit them, I have taken into account the following matters: - 1. The evidence of the accused, VL, CS, CAS and SS regarding NS’s behaviour and/or their dealings with or reports to the police in relation to the behaviour of NS or reports by NS against VL and the accused was not challenged. 2. The prosecution concession that the fact and timing of any reports made to police by VL or the accused was relevant in relation to the timeline of events. 3. The fact that reports were made to police by VL and the accused about NS is relevant to establishing contact with police during the period of the alleged offending. In other words, making reports to police invited the possibility of police speaking with SS and thus created an opportunity for SS to disclose the accused’s alleged offending. 4. The fact and timing of a report made by NS against the accused (and VL) and the timing of that report is relevant to the timeline of events. 5. The fact and timing of the reports to police about conduct about which VL, CAS, and the accused have given evidence is relevant because it makes it more likely that their account of reporting matters to police is true. That is so, whether the -- 137 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 136 evidence was challenged or not. Ultimately it is a matter for the finder of fact to accept or reject that evidence. Evidence that corroborates their account of the fact, timing and subject matter of the report is plainly relevant for that purpose. 671 Pursuant to s 53 EA I admit into evidence the following documents: • VD-D32 (now D32). • VD-D33 (now D33). • VD-D34 (now D34). • VD-D35 (now D35). • VD-D36 (now D36). • VD-D37 (now D37). • VD-D38 (now D38) • VD-D39 (now D39). • VD-D40 (now D40). • VD-D41 (now D41). • VD-D42 (now D42) 672 I will not admit into evidence VD-D31. No evidence was given by LL regarding this report. The report was made on 8 April 2005 by LL against NS. The accused was not in a relationship with VL at this time. Although it is a business record, I consider it has no relevance to the facts in issue in this trial. 673 I make it clear that the facts stated in or to be inferred from the VD-D32 – VD-D42 are limited to the following: 1. That on 20 March 2006 VL made a report to police that NS had on that day attended her workplace in breach of a restraining order. 2. That on 10 April 2006, VL made a report to police that NS on that day breached a restraining order by attending the Adelaide Magistrates Court and confronting the accused in a threatening manner and following the accused in his vehicle and then on foot into the Mill Street Carpark and approaching him when no other person was around, demanding to know what the accused’s name was, where he worked and which vehicle he owned. 3. That on 13 April 2006, VL made a report to police that on that day NS telephoned CS and threatened to kill VL and the accused. 4. That on 28 April 2006, VL made a report to police that on that day NS attended her work place and remained in the area after NS sighted and made contact with VL. 5. That on 13 November 2006 VL made a report to police that on that day NS had driven past SS as she was walking home from school and spoke to her. 6. That on 2 March 2007 CS made a report to police that on that day NS approached her in Woolworths Unley in breach a restraining order. 7. That on 19 April 2007 VL made a report to police that on that day NS attended her workplace and was within 100 metres of her in breach of a restraining order. -- 138 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 137 8. That on 2 June 2007, VL made a report to police that on that day she was working at the Commonwealth Law Courts on Angas Street when she saw NS standing behind her. 9. That on 25 September 2007 NS made a report to police that CS told him that VL knew someone who could arrange a contract to have him murdered and that SS had heard the accused say he was going to get a gun licence and shoot NS if he came near the house. 10. That on 5 February 2008, VL made a report to police that on that day she was travelling on Anzac Highway with SS when NS drove past tooting and waving and then drove in a manner causing her to swerve into road works. The accused was travelling in a separate car travelling the other way and witnessed the event. 11. That on 12 April 2008 VL made a report to police that a female attended her workplace to deliver a Final Notice of Claim from NS issued through the Magistrates Court, a helium balloon and a teddy in breach of a restraining order. 674 The documents are not admissible to prove the truth of the events reported to police. They are admissible as evidence supporting the timing, fact and content of the reports made to police and as evidence establishing the frequency and extent of the contact with police during the period of the alleged offending. Assessment of witnesses and further findings of fact Senior Constable Page 675 Senior Constable Page was a prosecution witness. There is no dispute that he spoke with SS on 18 March 2020 at the Christies Beach Police Station in a quiet room. I accept his unchallenged evidence that he understood the importance of recording accurately what a complainant says when the complainant comes to the police station for the first time. I accept his evidence that he understood the difference between the offence of rape and the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse. I accept his evidence that he understood that the issue of consent with respect to sexual offences was crucial. 676 I find that Senior Constable Page recorded the following details on the computer system as a result of what he was told by SS: Numerous historical rapes over three years (2006-2009). Reporting person states that between ages of 12-15 she was made to have full sexual intercourse with known suspect. It was her mother’s boyfriend at the time. Historical rape, 10 plus years ago, between stated times over three-year period. Victim states that the suspect [the accused] mother’s partner at the time, lived with the victim and her mother. Victim states that during this time period she was subject to full intercourse rape and anal rape by the suspect. Also she was made to conduct oral sex on the suspect. The victim states that there was never any witnesses to the offences and the rapes took place at a few different addresses over the years and even interstate in Queensland. The victim is now 26 years and wishes to report this. [Emphasis added]. Senior Constable 72534 Page SCCU. Victim is 26 years old and has attended Christies Beach Police Station today, 18th of the 3rd ’20 to report historical rape to her by her mother -- 139 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 138 ex-partner. These rapes took place between 2006 to 2009 when the victim was between the ages of 11 and 14. The suspect [AF] lived with the victim and her mother [VL] during the period when the offences took place and they separated in September 2010. The victim states that she was raped by [F] by vagina-penis penetration, anus-penis penetration, made to conduct oral sex on [F]. These all happened on various occasions during the stated time period. The victim states that during this time period where she was regularly raped by [F] they moved a few times. The other known addressed where the victim states she was raped are: 18 Clifton Street Camden Park, about 2007, 20 Platform Avenue, Sheidow Park, about 2009. The victim also states she was raped by [F] whilst visiting [F]’s parents and grandparents in Queensland. The victim states that the suspect works as a clerk for the Youth/Magistrate Court somewhere in Adelaide Metro area. Last address for suspect through police interactions linked to the occurrence but SAPD show the suspect residing at [address redacted]. Nil risk assessment completed as per advice from Southern District Family Violence vixen and due to being a 10 year plus historical rape. 677 There was nothing about Senior Constable Page’s evidence that caused me to doubt that he had accurately summarised what SS told him. I am satisfied and find that SS told Senior Constable Page that she had been regularly raped by the accused, anally, vaginally and orally. I am satisfied that SS told Senior Constable Page that she used the word rape and explained that she was made to engage in the sexual acts she alleged. Detective Senior Constable First Class Devlin 678 I accept Detective Devlin’s evidence that she took a statement from SS between May 2020 and January 2021. This statement was signed by SS on 5 January 2021. I accept her evidence that she had specific training in dealing with sexual abuse complainants and I infer and find that this is why she was assigned as the investigating officer. 679 I accept Detective Devlin’s evidence that if SS had told her any or all of the following things during the statement taking process, she would have recorded those in SS’s statement: • That she had been raped; • That she had anal sexual intercourse with the accused; • That whilst spooning or cuddling her on the sofa, the accused had touched her breasts and her bottom. 680 I find that SS did not say any of those things to Detective Devlin. I accept without hesitation Detective Devlin’s evidence that she never said to SS, words to the effect ‘this is a historical rape, it’s going nowhere’. I accept her evidence that this is something she would not say to a complainant because it would be very inappropriate. Given her specific training and her role as the investigating officer, it is entirely implausible that she would have said any such thing. Detective Brevet Sergeant Lee Elliott 681 Detective Elliott’s evidence was short and uncontroversial. I accept that he conducted the inquiries and obtained the evidence to which he referred. -- 140 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 139 CAS 682 CAS was reserved in manner when she gave her evidence. Her psychologist was present in court at her request. 683 I accept her evidence that she never saw any sexual contact between SS and the accused. The clear implication of that evidence is that all other interactions she described seeing between SS and the accused did not have any sexual aspect, connotation or overtone. I reject CAS’s evidence that she did not think that the accused seemed like a father figure to SS. That is exactly what she told police in her statement of 25 October 2023, ‘he was like the father she never had’. 684 I am satisfied that whatever interactions CAS observed between SS and the accused they were consistent with her view that he seemed to be a father figure to SS. The fact that she thought it was strange because he was not family and new to the scene was a view she would have held if he had behaved in similar way towards CS. In evaluating this evidence, I bear in mind that CAS had never previously experienced her mother living with a male partner other than her father and her father had not been affectionate to SS but had ignored her. 685 The impression I formed of CAS was that she appeared reluctant to accept the plain implication of some of her prior statements to police. For example, despite accepting that she never saw any sexual contact between SS and the accused, she was not prepared to accept that if she had seen the accused’s naked legs when she walked in to find him and SS on the bed that was something she would have recalled. 686 What she found ‘weird’ was that they were in the room with the door closed and the way they looked at her she found to be strange. She did not suggest that their position together on the bed was itself weird or strange. 687 In examination in chief, CAS said that the accused and SS were sitting next to each other in the corner of the bed closest to the bed head. That suggests that they were likely leaning up against the bed head or otherwise in a sitting position close to it. I infer and find that the sitting position she described encompassed sitting on their bottoms with either crossed legs or legs straight out in front of them. SS said in evidence that by the time CAS came into the room they were ‘both kind of like sitting up, but we were both lying on our backs’ with the doona which had a quilt cover on it just above her breast line. 688 CAS was asked in cross-examination why in 2023 she told police that she was not sure if they were under the covers or on top of the bed but in her statement five days before trial, she said they were on the bed. She said, ‘they were on the bed, I’m not sure whether they were covered with a blanket or not’. 689 She then went on to say that by blanket she meant ‘bed cover’. It is clear that CAS was referring to something loose on the bed that could be moved as she suggested it was when it was used by SS and the accused in the loungeroom. -- 141 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 140 690 I am not satisfied that CAS has any genuine memory of a blanket being present whether they were under it or not. 691 There is a difference between being under the covers of a bed and being on a bed whilst covered by a blanket. I view with circumspection her explanation for what I consider to be her prior inconsistent statement that she saw them on the bed. 692 Further, when taken to her 2023 statement she agreed that she had said nothing about a blanket and had never positively asserted that they were under the covers. 693 Given the matters set out above and the differences in their respective accounts, the evidence of CAS does not corroborate SS’s account that she and the accused were under the bed covers when surprised by CAS. 694 CAS said that there were a few occasions when she saw the accused lying on the couch on his side and SS was lying on her side in front of him, pushed back into the front of the accused. These were the only parts of their bodies that were touching. What CAS was in fact describing was not, in my view, cuddling as that would normally involve some form of embrace; an arm or arms wrapped around a person. There was no suggestion in her evidence that the accused had his arm or arms around SS or that he and SS had their knees up so that the top of his thighs were pressed against the back of her thighs. Rather what she was describing was two people lying parallel one behind the other on a couch. In contrast, in evidence SS described the ‘spooning’ as involving the accused having his arm over her and in her statement dated 29 January 2024 as involving the accused having his arms around her and cuddling her. 695 I am not satisfied that what CAS was describing corroborates SS’s account of the accused spooning her. For reasons that I will explain when I analyse the accused’s evidence, I am not satisfied that this evidence is inconsistent with or undermines the accused’s denials of ‘spooning’ SS in the manner SS described. CS 696 CS’s evidence was brief and largely uncontroversial. 697 CS’s description of the accused and SS on the couch in the lounge room was very similar to that of CAS. He did not suggest that the accused was embracing SS or had his arm around her. He said a blanket covered them shoulder to toe on most occasions. He did not describe their knees being pushed up so that the tops of the accused’s thighs were against the back of SS’s thighs. He did not ever see the accused’s genitals pressed up against his sister’s bottom. He never saw any inappropriate touching other than this activity. 698 In cross-examination, the reliability of some aspects of his account of his observations of what he described as spooning were undermined. In examination in chief, he said that the spooning was a ‘common thing’. However, he agreed that -- 142 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 141 he told police that ‘It wasn’t like they did this all the time or even frequently’. His explanation for the inconsistency was that maybe what he was saying was that frequently equated to daily. I am not prepared to accept as reliable his evidence that this was a ‘common thing’. 699 I am not satisfied that what CS was describing corroborates SS’s account of the accused spooning her. For reasons that I will explain when I analyse the accused’s evidence, I am not satisfied that this evidence is inconsistent with or undermines the accused’s denials of ‘spooning’ SS in the manner she described. MUJ 700 MUJ was an impressive witness. There was an obvious frankness and candour with which she answered the questions asked. That was particularly evident in cross-examination when asked by Mr Norman KC if SS exhibited any distress when she told her she was having sex with the accused. She frankly admitted that she was not sure if her feelings about the situation were taking over her memory of it. 701 I did not detect any bias in favour of SS or against the accused. MUJ demonstrated insight into her own thought processes by recognising that her perception of the interaction between the accused and SS may have been influenced by what SS had told her. 702 I accept MUJ’s evidence that SS told her she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend. The distinct impression I gained from MUJ’s evidence was that the disclosure was a titillating and ‘naughty’ secret, rather than one fraught with the worry of an unwanted pregnancy at such a young age and what to do about it. Given my findings regarding SS’s credibility and reliability I prefer MUJ’s account over that of SS. Whilst the passage of time makes it possible that MUJ could have forgotten the additional detail SS said she disclosed, namely that she was worried she was pregnant, I am satisfied that this was not the case. The tone and manner of the disclosure as described is inconsistent with SS’s account that the reason she made the disclosure was because of her concern she might be pregnant. 703 I accept MUJ’s evidence that there was the occasion she described when the accused was tickling SS on the couch and another occasion when SS and the accused disappeared and left her alone for a while. MUJ frankly admitted that her perception of events was coloured by what SS had told her. Accordingly, I place no weight on her evidence that she thought they were flirting. 704 The tickling as described by MUJ was completely innocuous and had no sexual overtone. I am satisfied that it was not an instance of inappropriate touching. It is clear from MUJ’s evidence, that the occasion when SS and the accused disappeared only assumed significance because of what SS had disclosed to her. -- 143 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 142 LL 705 LL was a theatrical and, at times, captivating witness. He described himself as an observer of humankind as a journalist and, despite this, he did not see anything untoward about the accused’s interaction with SS. The only occasion he described as incongruous was when the accused appeared to make a show of being protective of SS by putting his arm around her shoulder. Later when they were outside, he was walking around on his hands in front of everyone. 706 I have no reason to doubt LL’s evidence that NS rang him to tell him that SS had been raped by the accused. That behaviour accords with the litany of threatening and abusive behaviour by NS towards the accused and his obvious hatred towards the accused for being in a relationship with VL. I have no reason to doubt LL’s evidence that NS sounded ‘triumphal’. I accept that NS told him the police were coming to see him. 707 LL's evidence that he then spoke to SS about the allegations is behaviour I would expect from a grandfather learning that his granddaughter had been sexually abused. I accept his evidence that in the 2020/2021 Christmas/New Year period SS told him that the accused had regularly raped her between the ages of 11 and 14. This was not the first time that SS had described what occurred to her as rape. 708 I think it highly likely that SS was the person who told NS that the accused had been raping her between the ages of 11 and 14. VL 709 I formed a favourable impression of VL. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and did not exhibit any obvious bias towards or against the accused. 710 Her evidence about her violent and abusive husband, his pursuit of her and her family across Australia and his rage at learning of her relationship with the accused was compelling. She gave a first-hand account of the lifelong impact NS had on the family and particularly SS. I accept her evidence that SS was the child whom VL perceived as the most vulnerable, the child she most needed to protect. 711 I accept her evidence that she did her best to remain vigilant and never noticed anything sexual between the accused and SS. 712 I accept her unchallenged evidence that a couple of weeks after returning to the Camden Park unit after living with her father, SS told her she had had sex with a young boy and had not used protection. I accept her evidence that it was SS who asked VL to get her the morning after pill and she did so. 713 VL’s evidence about the frequency of her attendance at soccer games was at odds with the accused’s evidence, and that of LE and BR. Whilst not specifically asked if VL was at soccer games, LE said that he met VL at a social occasion and when SS was at the soccer she was on her own. BR said he had met VL half a -- 144 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 143 dozen times on social occasions. BR said when he saw SS at the soccer she was alone. The inference I draw from their evidence is that they did not see VL at the soccer games. 714 VL said that there was only one occasion that SS slept in her bedroom with her. I note that VL said she had woken up and found one of CS’s friends, A, in the bedroom alone with SS. Although she did not see anything inappropriate, she was sufficiently concerned to remove SS and put her in her bed. Notably when VL returned to the room with SS, she placed SS next to her so that VL was in the middle of the bed with SS on one side and the accused on the other. I accept VL’s evidence on this topic and it accords with her stated vigilance over SS’s welfare. 715 VL did not suggest that the accused was awake or aware that SS was in the bed. I am satisfied that there is a possibility that the accused was in fact unaware that SS was in the bed on this occasion, such that their accounts on this topic can be reconciled. In any event, VL’s evidence on this topic does not leave open the possibility that SS could have masturbated the accused as she described in evidence. SS 716 SS was a polite and courteous witness who had a self-effacing presentation. Her affect was wooden but she became emotional during certain aspects of her evidence. 717 I accept her unchallenged evidence about her traumatic upbringing and the violence inflicted by her father upon her mother and that fact that she witnessed her father raping her mother. It is common ground amongst the rest of her family who testified that her father was a violent thug who sought to exercise control and dominion over VL and terrorised the family in pursuit of that goal. I accept that this has had a profound and ongoing effect upon SS’s psychological health and led her to seek psychological and psychiatric assistance, prescribed medication and also self-medication, contrary to medical advice, with illicit cannabis. Absent expert evidence it is impossible to determine the impact, if any, upon her perception of, or ability to recall historical events. 718 It is unsurprising that in these circumstances, SS became emotionally attached to the accused. Her description of him as someone she went to for advice, someone she trusted and someone who made her feel special and loved accorded with the evidence of VL, CAS and the accused. Given her only other experience of a father figure was horrific and terrifying, the close bond she developed with the accused, who showed her only kindness and love, is readily understandable. That a child in her position would have gravitated towards the one stable male figure in her life who had no connection to the source of her past trauma is unsurprising. The accused was only 23 years old at the time, in a relationship with a woman and mother 12 years his senior and had never occupied a father-figure position. -- 145 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 144 719 SS’s evidence of the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by the accused was replete with deficiencies, infirmities, internal and external inconsistencies, implausibility and contradicted by other evidence I found reliable and credible to such a degree that I have been unable to accept any of her evidence on disputed matters and much of her evidence I positively reject. 720 The following matters have led me to have serious reservations about SS’s reliability and credibility. The sheer volume and cumulative effect of these matters is such that her evidence is not a satisfactory foundation for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior inconsistent statements Failure to come up to proof on particularised sexual acts 721 SS failed to come up to proof on two particulars in the charged offence. Particulars (f) and (g) alleged that the accused massaged her naked body on more than one occasion and sucked and bit her nipples on more than one occasion. At no stage during her evidence did SS allege that the accused did either of these things at any time. 722 Allegations opened upon by the prosecution of the accused ejaculating upon her body in the early stages of penile vaginal intercourse at Blyth Street and that where he would ejaculate would depend on what position they were in when they were having sex600 were specifically denied by SS. When asked in examination in chief whether on any of the occasions of sexual intercourse at Blyth Street she saw him ejaculate she said, ‘No, not that I can recall’. When pressed, ‘So not at all in Blyth Street’ she said, ‘Not in Blyth Street, no, I can’t remember or see him ejaculate or anything like that’. 601 723 In accordance with the principles articulated in R v M, AS (2013) 118 SASR 160 I will treat these as a prior inconsistent statements: The use of a demonstrated inconsistency between the prosecutor’s opening and a witness’ testimony to test the credit of that witness is a traditional and well-known process. The extract from Davis and Hyland v The Queen discussed above referred to inconsistencies established on this basis: ... A direction from the judge was required in conjunction with references to evidence; not just of possible inconsistencies between what the woman was then saying and what she had said in April, but also as to any inconsistencies between her evidence and the case as opened to the jury. ... (Emphasis added) There are many authorities in which a similar process has been referred to on appeal. The results of appeals have varied (often in line with the importance or otherwise of the inconsistency in question). What is constant is that this process of drawing an inference 600 Prosecution opening T 57, 5. 601 T 104, 21-26. -- 146 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 145 that the witness has previously made an inconsistent statement is open to the jury. [footnotes omitted].602 724 I consider that SS has made a prior inconsistent statement on three material matters. It is obvious that at some point, must have SS alleged that the accused had engaged in the two specific sexual acts in particulars (f) and (g) and ejaculated on her body in the early stages of their sexual relationship. 725 I do not accept Ms Grosset’s submission that SS’s evidence of fondling is a description capable of encompassing sucking and biting of nipples or massaging of her naked body. SS explained that fondling meant touching the accused’s penis and him touching her vagina, breasts and buttocks. None of those things is apt to describe particular (f) or (g). 726 Whilst the failure to come up to proof on a particular sexual act in a case involving serial sexual abuse over a lengthy period of time may be an inconsistency to which little weight should be attached, given my findings regarding the credibility and reliability of other aspects of SS’s evidence, I conclude that it is material. 727 The failure to mention these alleged sexual acts is, in my view, indicative of SS’s failure to recall an allegation she previously made which was not true as opposed to a failure to recall something that in fact happened. In respect of the allegation of ejaculating on her body, SS specifically denied that. The allegation related to a specific feature accompanying the sexual intercourse in the early stages. SS specifically denying that this ever occurred is a matter I consider undermines her credibility and reliability. Prior inconsistent statements by omission on material matters 728 I am satisfied that SS made the following prior inconsistent statements by omission: Spooning 1. SS gave evidence that the accused touched her vagina, breasts and bottom during spooning and on occasion had sexual intercourse with her. 2. SS omitted to mention in her statement dated 5 January 2021 that the accused had touched her sexually when he was spooning her. She did not tell Detective Senior Constable First Class Devlin that the accused touched her breasts, bottom or vagina whilst spooning. SS testified that she did tell Detective Devlin and it was Detective Devlin who decided what was relevant to put in the statement. SS said that she did not tell Detective Devlin that the accused touched her vagina because she did not have a memory of him doing so at that time. She said she suppressed it because there were so many times he did it. 3. In her statement dated 29 January 2024, SS described the spooning with the accused but made no mention of being touched by the accused in a sexual manner 602 [91] – [92]. -- 147 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 146 and the only mention of inappropriate touching was an allegation that the accused had put his hand under her top and rubbed her bellybutton, commenting that it was not pierced. Her explanation for the omission was that she had probably suppressed it and the one that stuck out the most was having her belly button touched. SS did not mention in evidence that the accused had touched her belly button whilst spooning her. Her explanation was that she forgot to mention it. 4. In her statement dated 3 April 2024 there was no mention of the accused touching her bottom and vagina during the spooning. SS initially said she told Detective Elliot that the accused did those things but then said she had most likely suppressed it. 5. In her statement dated 26 October 2025, SS did not mention that the accused touched her vagina or bottom during spooning. Initially, she testified that she had told the police officer taking the statement that the accused touched her vagina, breasts and bottom during spooning. However, when shown her statement she accepted she had not mentioned the accused touching her breasts, vagina or bottom during spooning. She then said that this was because it was hard to talk about spooning on the couch when she had suppressed so much of it and could not remember every single detail. 729 I reject SS’s evidence that she told Detective Devlin that the accused touched her breasts and bottom during spooning. I prefer Detective Devlin’s evidence on this topic for the reasons I have explained above. Detective Devlin denied on oath that SS had made those allegations to her and said if she had, they would have been included in her statement. She was an experienced police officer and trained to take statements from alleged victims of sexual offences. 730 The first time SS mentioned being touched on her bottom and vagina during spooning was in her evidence at trial. I am satisfied that SS lied on oath when asserting she told Detective Devlin the accused had touched her bottom and her breasts. Anal sex and rape allegations 1. SS said there was an occasion of anal sexual intercourse with the accused at Camden Park when they had driven there from the city. After the anal intercourse they drove back to the city to pick up VL. 2. In her statement dated 5 January 2021 SS made no allegation of anal sexual intercourse. SS said she did tell Detective Devlin but Detective Devlin did not want to put it in there and chose not to put it in there because SS could not quite remember the details. 3. SS said she told Detective Devlin the accused raped her. In her statement of 5 January 2021, SS made no allegation of the accused raping her. 731 I reject SS’s evidence that she told Detective Devlin the accused had anal sexual intercourse with her and raped her. I have accepted Detective Devlin’s evidence that SS did not tell her that the accused had raped her or had anal sexual intercourse with her. I am satisfied that SS lied on oath when she asserting she told -- 148 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 147 Detective Devlin the accused had raped her and had anal sexual intercourse with her. Masturbating the accused in bed with VL present 1. SS gave evidence that there was only one time that she masturbated the accused in her mother’s bed with her mother present. 2. In her statement dated 5 January 2021, SS said the accused would make her do things to him when her mother was asleep next to them. 3. SS said in evidence that on this occasion she took the accused’s penis half out of his pants and used moisturiser to lubricate his penis. SS accepted that she had not previously told police this. 732 When confronted with the inconsistency regarding the number of occasions she masturbated the accused in her mother’s bed, SS said that in fact there were lots of times she shared the bed with her mother and the accused and she would masturbate the accused’s penis. When asked why she had not mentioned the moisturiser or that the accused’s penis was half out she said it was hard to remember something in every little detail. She then said that when questioned by police she tried to explain it or get the information out there but they only used what they wanted to use. She then clarified when pressed further that she did not recall telling the police these details, despite asserting a clear memory of them. 733 SS did not provide any adequate explanation for providing two contradictory answers to the same question. Soccer games 1. SS said from the time the accused bought Camden Park until they moved in she went to every soccer game with him, around 50 times. Her mother never went with her. 2. In her diary entry (D17) SS wrote ‘the only days mum would ‘try to be interested’ in us kids was when [D] would go to soccer practices Tuesday, Thursdays and Sundays. 734 SS’s explanation was that VL would have dinner with them on Tuesdays and Thursdays when the accused was at soccer practice. She provided no adequate explanation for the reference to her mother trying to be interested in the children when the accused was at soccer on Sundays. Her own diary entry contradicted her evidence that she attended games every Sunday after the accused bought the Camden Park unit and before they moved into it. Bondage 1. SS gave detailed evidence of the accused tying her up with his work ties and having sex with her at Camden Park and that this happened several times. She said he trained her to be a sex doll. -- 149 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 148 2. SS agreed that she had never mentioned this to anyone until 26 October 2025 a few days before she gave evidence. 735 SS’s explanation for not mentioning this to anyone before 26 October 2025 was that, whilst she had a good memory of it, she had suppressed it because it triggered her. Being trained like a sex doll and being subjected to repeated acts of bondage at such a young age is something I would have expected SS to have recalled and mentioned to police if it had happened. SS did not suggest that she had not mentioned it out of embarrassment, or because she did not want to talk about it or some other potentially plausible reason. I reject SS’s explanation for omitting to mention this aspect of their sexual activity until a few days before trial. I am satisfied that when SS relied upon suppression of memory as an explanation for an omission she did so as a convenient and unassailable explanation for an otherwise inexplicable omission. I reject her evidence that the accused engaged in sexual bondage acts with her. Reason accused used work vehicle to drive to Moana 1. SS said that the accused used the work vehicle to drive her to Moana because it was in the driveway blocking the use of his own car which was in the garage. 2. SS agreed she had never previously said this. 736 SS’s explanation for this omission was that giving evidence in court was the most detail she had ever provided about the sexual offences and the police did not ask her why the accused took the government car to Moana. Whilst this in isolation is a plausible explanation, I reject it given the pattern displayed by SS of tailoring her evidence to justify what she recognised was an implausibility in her account. Prior inconsistent statements by commission Anal rape allegations 1. SS said she told Senior Constable Page that the accused had raped her anally on only one occasion. 2. Senior Constable Page recorded SS as alleging that there were various occasions of anal rape between 2006 and 2009. 737 I reject SS’s evidence that she told Senior Constable Page that there was only one occasion of rape. I am satisfied that Senior Constable Page accurately recorded SS’s account of multiple rapes, including anal rape between 2006-2009. Whether there was a sexual relationship between SS and the accused 1. In her diary note in D15 which SS said was true SS wrote ‘My jealouse came from mum and [the accused]. When they would have sex I would get angery and I would make it obovise. It would just start a fight between me and mum. I always thought there was something was wrong with me and that why [the accused] didn’t pick me’. -- 150 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 149 738 Her explanation was that the reference to the accused not ‘picking’ her was not picking her on a particular occasion that he had sex with her mother. 739 I reject SS’s explanation for the diary note. On her account the accused was having sex with her regularly. I am satisfied that the note is a prior inconsistent statement on the topic of whether SS ever had sexual intercourse with the accused. I am satisfied that in her prior statement, which SS adopted as true, she recorded her jealousy and feelings of rejection because she was obsessed with the accused and developed sexual feelings towards him but resented the fact that he was having sex with her mother. Exclusive sexual relationship with accused 1. SS said in evidence that she did not have sexual intercourse with anyone other than the accused, except when she went to live with her father for six months. 2. In her diary note D16, SS recorded that she brought J, a boy from school, back to the accused’s house and had sex with him when J’s 14th birthday was coming up. She thought the accused was her best friend so she told him and he got really angry and told her mother and she was grounded for a month. She was not allowed to go home after school and had to catch a bus to the city and wait until VL and the accused finished work. 740 SS’s explanation for the prior inconsistent statement was that it was a long time ago and not something she was going to remember. She agreed she recalled it in March 2021 when she wrote these notes. She then said that it was a memory but she had not read the note since 2021. When asked why she did not mention this in evidence she said she did not know whether it was before or after she moved in with her father. 741 I reject SS’s explanation for the prior inconsistent statement. Being grounded after having sex with J was a significant event for SS. She committed her memory of it to a diary note specifically tying the sexual intercourse to J’s upcoming 14th birthday and the consequences to her of being betrayed by the accused when she confided in him. I am further satisfied that SS testified that she was in an exclusive sexual relationship with the accused, except for when she was living with her father, in order to support her account of lying to her mother about the real reason for asking for the morning after pill. 742 I am satisfied that SS asked her mother for the morning after pill because she had sex with someone other than the accused (probably J) and was afraid she might be pregnant. It is noteworthy that despite multiple acts of unprotected sexual intercourse, and despite SS being concerned she was pregnant and disclosing this concern to MUJ in 2006, there was only one occasion SS could specifically recall when she asked her mother for the morning after pill. -- 151 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 150 Driving to Camden Park from the city to have sexual intercourse and returning to pick up VL 1. D16 and D19: In these notes, SS recorded that after having sex with J at Camden Park, she was not allowed to go home after school and had to catch a bus to the city and wait until VL and the accused finished work. The accused would drive her and her mother home and this went on for years. 743 SS’s explanation for this note was that she was referring to the time when they were living at Sheidow Park. I reject that explanation. I find that SS had sex with J at Camden Park and as a consequence was grounded and required to catch a bus into the city. It follows that she was still living at Camden Park when this arrangement was put in place. The diary note itself says this ‘went on for years’. SS made no mention in the diary notes of the allegation she made in evidence that the accused was taking her home to have sex with her and then returning to the city to pick up VL. Evidence contradicted or not corroborated by evidence of other witnesses Conduct of Detective Devlin during statement taking process 1. SS said that during the process of taking her statement dated 5 January 2021, Detective Devlin told her that hers was a historical rape case and it was going nowhere. 2. Detective Devlin denied on oath that she had said any such thing and said she would never say such a thing because it would be very inappropriate. 744 I am satisfied that SS lied on oath when she said that Detective Devlin told her that it was a historical rape and the case was going nowhere. That would be an extraordinary thing for a police officer with Detective Devlin’s training to say and she denied emphatically having done so. SS was prepared to make serious allegations of professional misconduct against a police officer rather than admit having omitted something from her statement. Not only was she prepared to testify that Detective Devlin had deliberately omitted relevant evidence from her statement, the implication in the comments she attributed to Detective Devlin was that Detective Devlin was not interested in her allegations and was not attending to them seriously and professionally. 745 I am driven to conclude that SS gave this evidence was because she well realised that to accept the truth was damaging to the credibility of her narrative. She was prepared to throw a police officer under the proverbial bus to salvage her own credibility. In doing so, she has severely damaged it. Sleeping in bed with VL and the accused 1. SS said that before her mother started dating the accused, she slept in her mother’s bed. After she commenced a sexual relationship with the accused there were many times when she shared the bed with the accused and her mother. -- 152 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 151 2. VL said there was one occasion when SS shared the bed with her and the accused. On that occasion, VL was in the middle, SS on one side and the accused on the other. 746 VL’s evidence directly contradicted the evidence of SS on this topic. I found VL’s evidence on this topic to be credible and reliable. She was able to recall the circumstances in which she removed SS from her room. Whilst it conflicted with the accused’s evidence that there were no occasions when SS shared the bed, it is a reasonable possibility that VL put SS into the bed (on her side and furthest from the accused) and the accused was asleep and did not realise or has otherwise forgotten. Soccer games 1. SS said that from the time the accused bought the Camden Park house she would watch him play soccer every Sunday and he would shower and then take her to Camden Park where they would have sexual intercourse. This went on for over a year. SS said she would always be there 7.00am in the morning watching him play. She went to home and away games. SS said she never went to soccer with VL because her mother never went. She said no one ever brought their children unless it was a family event but that might have been a one-off occasion. 2. It was an agreed fact that the accused became the registered owner of the Camden Park house on 28 August 2006. The accused’s unchallenged evidence was that the soccer season ran from March until September. VL rented the house at Blyth Street from 7 May 2005 until 6 June 2007. By 6 June 2007 VL, SS and the accused were all living together in the Camden Park unit. The approximate number of soccer games played by the accused in the period during which SS alleged she was having sexual intercourse with the accused was less than 20. 3. VL said she went to soccer games relatively frequently before she went to the bar in October 2008. Sometimes there were spectators there, usually men and some of their partners and children. Sometimes SS would come with her. She could not recall any occasion when SS went to soccer without her. 4. LE said he saw SS at the soccer on the odd occasion and that was probably two or three at the most. Games were on Sunday afternoons at 1.00pm and the A side played at 3.00pm. The accused was involved in the social aspect and would go to the bar, have a drink and chat and watch the next game 5. BR said SS definitely came and watched two or three soccer matches. He never saw her at an away game. He saw SS after the games at the club when they went back to socialise and have a beer after the match. The accused would generally stop and have a drink with them before he went home. The accused stayed for an hour or so after home games for drinks. 6. The accused said that he would arrive around 45 minutes before the start of the game which was midday-1.00pm. He would shower after a home game and then stay and watch the As. He would get something to eat and drink. He would socialise until dinner time. He could only recall SS coming to one game, a home game. There were other children there. They went back to Blyth Street because that is where they were living at the time. He said it was possible she may have come to one other game but he thought it was unlikely. -- 153 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 152 747 There was no serious challenge to the evidence of BR and LE, and they were both struck me as honest and reliable witnesses. Each of them was confident that SS had been at soccer games on no more than 3 occasions. Their evidence that the accused would watch the game afterwards on most occasions of home games and socialise at the club was plausible and consistent with their evidence of his personality and the social aspects of the game. I am satisfied that if SS had been at every soccer game and/or the accused had left without socialising or watching the following game, BR and LE would have noticed. 748 VL’s evidence did not corroborate SS’s account of the frequency of her attendance and indeed the duration of her absence from the home. It is a nonsense to suggest that VL would have failed to notice her daughter’s absence for the better part of every Sunday for a period of about twelve months. 749 I reject SS’s evidence that she attended every soccer game and that the accused would shower after the game then leave immediately. I reject SS’s evidence that she attended any away game. Keys to the Camden Park unit 750 SS said she was the first person the accused took to the Camden Park unit when he obtained the keys. The photographs in D22 are independent evidence refuting SS’s account. VL said it was possible she took the photographs. SS did not suggest she was present when the keys were handed over. The accused is clearly shown holding some sort of gift package whilst shaking an older man’s hand. The accused is wearing the same clothing in the next photograph, depicting him appearing to fist punch or high-five in an unfurnished room. Being caught by CAS with accused under covers in bed 751 For the reasons I have explained above the evidence of CAS does not corroborate the evidence of SS that she and the accused were both underneath the covers and their pants were down as they were close to having sex. She described her sister ‘bursting’ through the door. The accused was able to ‘get off’ SS and pick up her book and act as if he was helping her do her homework. It was not suggested by the prosecution that if the accused was sitting on the bed clothed with SS helping her to read that this would be discreditable conduct. Spooning 752 For the reasons I have explained above, the evidence of CAS and CS does not corroborate the evidence of SS that the accused spooned her in the way she described. VL gave no evidence on this topic. Disclosure to LL that accused had raped her 753 SS denied telling LL after she made her police report in 2020 that the accused had regularly raped her. She said that did not happen and she would not ever talk to him about the case and had never talked to him about it. LL said that in the -- 154 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 153 2020/2021 Christmas/New Year period SS told him that the accused had regularly raped her between the ages of 11 and 14. 754 I prefer the evidence of LL on this topic. This was not the first time that SS had described what occurred to her as rape. It is entirely understandable that, having learnt of the allegations from NS, LL would have spoken to SS about it. Internal inconsistences in evidence of SS The first occasion of sexual activity 755 SS was asked about the first occasion of sexual activity between her and the accused and her evidence was that this was when she was on a mattress in the lounge room in March 2006 before her 12th birthday. She explained that she could remember the colour and pattern of her underwear because this was the first time something sexual happened. There was no hint of uncertainty or confusion that this was the first sexual act. She was specifically asked if the accused had touched her in any other manner, not necessarily sexual, before this occasion. She said not that she could recall and all she could think of was that they may have held hands. 756 When asked whether they cuddled or did anything like that, despite being led on the topic, SS said no, not until after they started being sexual which she subsequently referred to as the first occasion of sexual intercourse. She immediately corrected her evidence and went on to say that the accused had been touching her sexually whilst spooning her for the two months prior to the mattress incident. She said it occurred on the two-seater and three-seater couches in the loungeroom. 757 I am satisfied that when giving evidence SS had initially forgotten that she had alleged in her statement dated 3 April 2024 that the accused had touched her breasts during spooning. I am satisfied that in evidence she, for the first time, embellished her account by including allegations that the accused also touched her bottom and vagina. In none of her previous statements had she mentioned that the accused touched her vagina and bottom during spooning, and it was not until 3 April 2024 that she mentioned in a statement that the accused had touched her breasts during spooning. 758 In examination in chief, she said the accused touched her bottom, breasts and vagina during the spooning. She made no mention of any penile-vaginal intercourse during spooning. In cross-examination (and for the first time) she alleged that the accused would also have penile-vaginal sexual intercourse whilst spooning on the couch. Number of occasions of anal intercourse and knowing what anal sex was 759 SS said in evidence in chief ‘there were times where we did anal sex’. She shortly afterwards said anal sex only occurred on one occasion. -- 155 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 154 760 SS said when she was a thirteen-year-old girl she did not know about anal sex. She then said it was possible it was her idea and when asked how she would have known about that she disclosed she had been watching pornographic tapes with her siblings. Reaction to being caught in bed with the accused by CAS 761 SS said in examination in chief that when CAS came into the room the accused picked up her book and acted as if he was helping her to read it. Shortly afterwards, when I asked her if there was a book there, she said it was on the bed and she picked up the book. Lack of understanding of sexual intercourse 762 SS said that aged 11 and 12 she did not understand the concept of sexual activity. When she spoke to MUJ a couple of months after her 12th birthday she said they were just learning about puberty, let alone having sex or anything like that. 763 However, when she said it was possible she came up with the idea of having anal sex with the accused and she was asked how she knew about that, SS said that as children they had found pornographic tapes and seen what people did on those. The first time she watched a pornographic video was when she was 10 years old in Queensland. She then that was the only time she had watched a pornographic video. It depicted a man and woman having sex in the park. She knew they were having sex because he put his penis in her vagina. When it was put to her that she had just admitted she knew what sex was before she met the accused, she said yes, but she had never had sex. Being trained by VL and NS not to speak to the authorities 764 In explaining why she lied to her mother about needing the morning after pill, SS said she thought if she told the truth she would be taken away from her mother. When I asked her where she thought she would be taken away to, she said that her parents trained them that if they ever got child protective services involved, they would split up the children. She said her parents trained them not to tell police or child protective services because they would be separated from each other. She just did not want to be taken away from her mother. 765 When pressed about when it was that her mother ever told her not to tell the police anything she said twice it was ‘more’ her father than her mother. When asked the same question she said her mother never said not to speak to police, it was ‘mostly’ her father. She continued to repeat that it was her parents or mostly her father until eventually she said it was only her father. When asked why she told me that it was her parents, she said that she had never called the police on her mother. 766 The manner in which SS answered these questions did her no credit. It was obvious that during cross-examination she realised that asserting that she had been -- 156 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 155 trained by her parents not to involve the authorities was an implausible explanation for not telling her mother about the sexual abuse. This realisation was the source of her obfuscation and ultimately nonsensical explanation for why she said this in the first place. Implausibility of account Unprotected sexual intercourse 767 SS’s account of the accused having regular unprotected sexual intercourse with her when she was sexually mature was implausible. At Blyth Street, she never saw him ejaculate and he did not use condoms. The implication is that he either never ejaculated or he ejaculated inside her. The former is highly unlikely. Despite the multitude of occasions of unprotected sexual intercourse, she was only once concerned that she might be pregnant to the point of asking her mother for the morning after pill. SS’s request for her mother to obtain the morning after pill is consistent with an isolated instance of unprotected sexual intercourse. Taking work car to Moana to have sex with SS 768 The reason SS gave (for the first time) for the accused taking a work vehicle for a 40km round trip to Moana was that it was in the driveway blocking is own car in the garage. The accused was not challenged regarding his evidence that he was required to fill in a logbook recording his mileage and placed travelled in the government vehicles he was assigned for the purpose of attending circuits in the course of his employment. It is inherently unlikely that the accused would take the risk of using a work vehicle for an unauthorised journey of that length with a minor and attempt to engage in sexual activity with her simply because he could not be bothered moving the work vehicle in order to access his own vehicle. Reason for lying to VL about morning after pill 769 Whilst there might be a legitimate reason in any given case that a complainant might believe that disclosure of sexual abuse would result in an unwanted or traumatic consequence, either because of something the accused said or because of a belief, for example, that the complaint would not be believed, that is not what SS said. The reason she proffered unravelled in cross-examination. Her mother had fled her physically abusive father in an effort to protect herself and her children. There is no evidentiary foundation for any belief in SS that telling her mother would result in her being taken away from her mother. Indeed, she conceded that her mother would have taken her to the police if she had told her. The accused’s reaction to learning that she had sex with other people whilst living with her father 770 SS’s account of the accused’s reaction to SS telling him that she had been having sex with other people whilst living with her father was improbable given her evidence that he had reacted so angrily to her disclosure of having had sex with J in the Camden Park unit. -- 157 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 156 Sex on the couch under the blanket at Blyth Street 771 Not only had SS never previously asserted that the accused had penile- vaginal sexual intercourse with her on the couch during occasions of spooning, but her account of this occurring was so risky and inconsistent with SS’s account of the other measures that the accused allegedly took to avoid detection as to be inherently implausible. CAS said there was no door to the lounge room. It was generally used for watching television. The actual act of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse required movement, at least by the accused. The risk of detection was high, regardless of whether a blanket was covering them. SS said ‘anyone could walk into the room at any time’. The same level of implausibility attended SS’s account of the mattress incident. Having time to conceal imminent act of sexual intercourse from CAS 772 SS’s account of CAS bursting into the room unexpectedly at the time that the accused was about to have sex with SS is difficult to reconcile with SS’s account that there was sufficient time (a) to react to the door being opened (b) for the accused to move from a position on top of SS under the covers (c) and pick up a book and (d) appear as if he was innocently assisting SS with her homework. It is apparent on SS’s account that each of them must have remained (and did remain) under the covers (given their state of undress). Accordingly, on her account, they were both under the covers in her bed when CAS saw them. If CAS thought that the spooning she witnessed was inappropriate, it beggars belief that if they had been under the covers as described by SS, CAS would not have noticed and remembered. Driving from city to Camden Park and return to have sex 773 SS said this happened four or five times a week. The accused left work on the dot at 4.30pm every time. 774 SS’s account of having sexual intercourse in these circumstances and that frequently was implausible and contradicted by the unchallenged evidence that the accused went to soccer trainings during soccer season twice a week. It would not have been possible for the accused to leave work at 4.30pm, take SS home to Camden Park, have sex with her for 20-30 minutes, return to the city to collect VL and be at soccer training at Plympton by 6pm. It is noteworthy that in SS’s evidence she made no mention of this pattern being interrupted by the accused’s soccer training schedule. Had the sexual intercourse been happening in the manner and location described by SS I would have expected her to recall that on Tuesdays and Thursdays (or Wednesdays and Fridays) they did not return to Camden Park to have sex. On the contrary, in her diary note she specifically mentioned her mother paying her attention when the accused was at soccer practice on Tuesdays and Thursdays. -- 158 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 157 Masturbating accused in presence of VL 775 The account of SS was inherently implausible given there was no evidence led that her mother was in such a stupor that she would have been blissfully unaware that her daughter was masturbating her partner in the bed in which she was sleeping. Other matters Valentine’s Day and Birthday cards 776 The prosecution did not rely upon the undisputed evidence that the accused gave SS Valentine’s Day cards and authored one of the birthday cards tendered in evidence as discreditable conduct. 777 In my view, the giving of each of the Valentine’s Day cards was clearly intended to make SS feel special and was a thoughtful gesture. The birthday cards authored by the accused were obviously humorous and affectionate. To my mind, the most relevant feature of this evidence was that SS kept these cards at all. The keeping of memorabilia is often associated with wanting to preserve the memory of a happy time in a person’s life, to be looked back on fondly in the years to come. In my view, it is significant that SS retained items given to her by the accused. I infer and find that she did so because she did love the accused and he had a significant positive impact on her life at a formative time in her childhood. Pretext calls 778 I am satisfied that the accused had no idea that the calls between him and SS were being recorded. When listening to each of the calls, the distinct impression I formed was that the accused was genuinely surprised but pleased to hear from SS and enjoyed the trip down memory lane that the calls provided. The accused sounded genuinely interested in the course SS’s life had taken since they had last seen each other. 779 There was a complete lack of any hint or suggestion of concern, disquiet, or reluctance on the accused’s behalf to discuss their past relationship and how he felt about SS in the time he was in a relationship with her mother. I agree with the submission made by Mr Norman KC that each of the conversations lacked any sexual frisson or tension between the parties consistent with any species of abusive relationship. 780 When SS reminded the accused of the Valentine’s Day card and told him she had kept it for all of those years, the accused volunteered that he had kept all of the notes she wrote him until his ex-wife made him throw them out. The manner in which the accused reflected on the feelings he had towards SS and that his relationship with her was what made him think he could be a father himself, rang true and sounded completely authentic. 781 When asked if he still thought of SS, the accused volunteered that he did so on a daily basis and explained why. The reference to ‘not wanting to sound creepy’ -- 159 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 158 was a completely natural segue into the accused explaining how a sign he passed every day to work had a photograph of a girl who was SS’s doppelganger. Having now seen that photograph (D30) the resemblance between the girl pictured and SS’s appearance in P3 is striking. There was nothing about the girl in the picture that was sexually provocative or alluring. 782 SS showed no hint of the fear or concern about what to say to the accused during the two conversations. I reject her evidence that she was scared and did not know what to say. The conversations flowed effortlessly. 783 SS said that she knew the accused would not make any admissions. I reject her evidence that this was because she had once sent him a sexual text message and he had reprimanded her for it and that she knew he worked in the court system. I am satisfied that SS gave this evidence to justify her decision not to mention anything to the accused about their alleged prior sexual relationship, directly or indirectly. I am satisfied that SS was concerned that if she did so, the accused’s denials would be so vehement and his reaction so profound that the calls would adversely affect the prosecution of her case against him. 784 SS’s evidence regarding her reaction to the phone calls was internally inconsistent. After listening to the first call in the witness box, SS said that ‘it wasn’t triggering me in the process of doing this phone call’ and yet the next day when she listened to the second call she said she spoke to the accused for a longer period of time because ‘it wasn’t as triggering as the first time I did it’. 785 My overriding impression of the way in which SS conversed with the accused was that she was enjoying speaking with him. There was nothing in her responses that suggested she was scared, nervous or ‘triggered’ in any way. When she was listening to the calls in evidence, I noticed there were a number of times when she smiled and appeared to be amused. Whilst I accept that caution must be applied when placing weight on the demeanour of a witness in the witness box, SS’s apparent reaction to hearing the calls did not suggest that they caused her any discomfort. 786 I reject as untenable SS’s explanation that she discussed ‘catching up’ with the accused because of her experience in customer service. When pressed, she acknowledged that she never used this term in customer service. Telling the accused he made her feel special and loved, there were no hard feelings and discussing catching up with a person she understood would go to prison for years if convicted was consistent with an astonishing degree of performance if the accused had in fact serially sexually abused her. Circumcised penis 787 There is no dispute that the accused’s penis is circumcised. 788 SS said she observed this when she was having sex with him and giving him ‘handjobs’. SS gave no other description whatsoever of the accused’s penis, its -- 160 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 159 size or shape, whether flaccid or erect or even as to the fact and extent of his pubic hair despite years of sexual activity. 789 The prosecution relied upon this as demonstrating esoteric knowledge. It was said that the evidence excluded the possibility of SS knowing that the accused’s penis was circumcised from another innocent source. In cross-examination the accused said that as far as he was aware SS did not see him naked and therefore would not have seen that his penis was circumcised. 790 The fact that the appellant was circumcised and SS gave evidence to that effect, does not, in the circumstances of this case, rise to the level of esoteric knowledge. 791 Apart from the unremarkable nature of this feature603, the possibility that SS at some time came to learn that the accused’s penis was circumcised cannot be excluded on the evidence. The accused said it did not cause him any embarrassment to acknowledge that he was circumcised. In other words, it was not something that he would have kept hidden or not disclosed. The fact that the accused said that as far as he knew SS had not seen him naked does not exclude the possibility that she did. Plainly, VL knew he was circumcised. The accused lived with SS and VL (and some members of her family) for a number of years. It is entirely possible that she learnt that the accused was circumcised from another source or innocently. Initial complaint 792 I do not consider that the initial complaint bolsters SS’s credibility. In fact, I consider that SS’s disclosure to MUJ was an extension of her feelings as expressed in her diary note (D15). In other words, she had a pubescent crush on the accused and fantasised about a sexual relationship with him and was angry when her mother had sex with the accused. When she told MUJ she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend she said this to titillate and not because it was true. The accused’s evidence and defence witnesses LE 793 The only aspect of LE’s evidence that was challenged was his account that he saw SS at two or three soccer games, at the most. In cross-examination he remained firm and said that it was not possible that she was at more than that number of games. There was nothing about the manner in which LE gave evidence that caused me to doubt his credibility and reliability. Whilst he was not precise 603 In R v H, S (2004) 90 SASR 300, Duggan J referred to an uncircumcised penis as being an unremarkable feature. In that case, despite the complainant giving evidence of an observable peculiarity in the accused’s uncircumcised penis, Duggan J, with whom Besanko J agreed, said the evidence did not exclude the possibility of the complainant seeing the accused’s penis during an innocent activity. C.f Park (A Pseudonym) v The Queen (2022) 142 SASR 132. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge was not in error in finding that although the complainant and the appellant lived in the same house it was unlikely that there would have been innocent occasions when she may have seen his penis. -- 161 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 160 about the actual number of times he saw SS at soccer, that was understandable given the passage of time. However, he was clear that it was no more than two or three times. I accept his evidence on this topic and his opinion regarding the accused’s reputation, which was not challenged. BR 794 BR’s memory of the number of occasions that SS attended soccer games accorded with that of LE. Notably he never saw her at an away game. As observed by LE, BR saw her after games at the club when they went to socialise and have a beer. The accused 795 The accused was a singularly impressive witness. His account was measured, coherent, cogent and compelling. The evidence as to his good character was unchallenged and I have taken it into account in assessing his sworn evidence and in considering the likelihood of him having committed this offence. 796 At no point during his evidence did I detect any guile, reconstruction, embellishment or any attempt to paint himself in a better light. Indeed, he volunteered in evidence that his own mother voiced her concerns regarding his physical interactions with SS. I found his account of his conversation with his mother and the response it provoked in him singularly compelling. 797 I am satisfied that he was a young man trying to navigate a relationship of a kind that he had never experienced before – dating and living with an older woman with an abusive and violent ex-husband with three children, the youngest of whom was obviously deeply affected by her traumatic upbringing. 798 His answers were spontaneous and unscripted. He was thoughtful witness; there were no pauses following questions and it was obvious to me that he was answering each question asked of him to the best of his ability and memory. 799 His evidence remained internally consistent and there was not a single prior inconsistent statement proved by the prosecution. In all material respects, his account had the ring of truth to it and aspects of it were corroborated by evidence led in the prosecution case and the two witnesses, BR and LE. Compelling nature of accused’s evidence 800 There were a number of occasions during the accused’s evidence that I found his testimony on certain matters particularly compelling. The following are examples: Explanation for doppelganger reference in pretext call 801 Fortuitously the accused was able to locate and produce a copy of the photograph of the girl whom he told SS in the second pretext call looked like her doppelganger. True to the accused’s account in the pretext call, the girl in that -- 162 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 161 photograph, in my view, looked strikingly similar to how SS looked in 2006. Notably, there was nothing about that photograph that had a sexual connotation. 802 The accused’s comment ‘not to sound creepy’ was an entirely natural comment to preface the explanation for why he would think about her all the time and pretty much every morning. That he would not want her to think it was odd that he thought about her every day was entirely consistent with them having had a normal relationship. It is akin to saying, ‘don’t take this the wrong way’. In the circumstances, there was indeed nothing ‘creepy’ about the accused telling SS that he thought about her all the time because, on a daily basis, he would drive past a sign which featured a girl who looked just like she did as a child. Explanation of how his physical relationship with SS developed 803 The accused explained SS became comfortable talking to him and they would play games and kick a ball around the backyard. This was his first interaction with a child in this way and he had never experienced this sort of attention from a child. His description of the organic development of their physical contact had the ring of truth to it: I think it – I don’t remember when, those early stages but it would have been awkward for me, because, like I said, I’d never had that sort of relationship with, you know, a kid before. But I think after a while, you know, I didn’t really think much of it. It was obviously something that I realised she needed to feel secure, yeah, and I mean [V] never said anything, she never really gave me any guidance, so I just sort of had to assume, you know, just wing it.604 Occasion SS possibly tried to kiss him 804 The accused’s description of how he felt when SS sat on him straddling his legs with her hands on his shoulders and his discomfort and subsequent response sat comfortably with his account of navigating his physical relationship with SS and had the ring of truth to it. His own mother’s concerns about his physical closeness to SS 805 The accused’s account of his mother voicing concerns about SS sitting on his lap was convincing as was his initial reaction to his mother and then how what she said stuck with him. The gentle way in which he discouraged SS from sitting in his lap demonstrated his sensitivity towards her feelings and accorded with the evidence of BC that the accused was quite thoughtful and sensitive of others. Why he would not have been comfortable alone with someone else’s child. 806 The accused’s explanation for why he would not have been comfortable being alone with someone else’s child was also convincing. He explained that he had no experience and had never babysat anyone in his life at that stage. If he was 604 T 547, 25-34. -- 163 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 162 a parent he would not have been happy discovering that his child was left alone with a stranger. That as far as he was aware SS would not have seen him naked. 807 The accused’s candour in answering this question was evident. It could hardly have escaped him that discounting the possibility that SS could have seen him naked and therefore excluding an innocent explanation for her knowing his penis was circumcised, might assist the prosecution case. Corroboration of accused’s account on material matters 808 The accused’s account on the following matters was corroborated by the unchallenged evidence of BR and LE and evidence led by the prosecution: Soccer training and games 809 The accused’s evidence of the number of soccer games attended by SS was effectively corroborated by LE and BR, taking into account the passage of time and its effect upon memory. It was common ground amongst LE and BR that SS did not attend soccer games any more than on two or three occasions. It was also common ground amongst LE and BR that the accused was involved in the social aspect of the game, namely watching the A team play and having a beer at the clubrooms. Their evidence supported his account that he did not leave immediately after the home games. Working hours - driving home from work 810 When they were living at Blyth Street, VL said she and the accused would travel to and from work together. When they were living at Camden Park, SS would come to her office after school and they would travel home together. Both she and the accused were working 9.00am-5.00pm when they were living at Camden Park. Time VL went to bed 811 VL said she went to be around 8.30pm-9.00pm on average. Meals as a family 812 VL said that they had meals as a family weekly, sometimes daily. She would cook most nights and dinner would be between 5.30pm and 6.30pm. Who was present at Dicky Beach beach house and when 813 VL said that there were two trips to Queensland with SS and the accused that she could recall. On the longer trip to Queensland, CS, the accused’s niece E, her -- 164 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 163 mother and partner were at Dicky Beach in the 2008/2009 Christmas period605. SS and E were sleeping downstairs and she and the accused slept upstairs. The behaviour of NS towards the accused and VL and the reports made to police 814 VL’s evidence regarding NS’s abusive and threatening behaviour towards her and the accused corroborated the accused’s account. Their respective accounts of the fact, timing and content of reports made to police were corroborated by the detailed occurrence reports. I am satisfied and find that during the currency of their relationship, VL and the accused had interactions with the police regarding NS and on one occasion were the subject of a false report by NS to the police. SS herself said that the accused was encouraging her to interact with the police when her father had been hanging around her school. The pretext calls 815 As observed earlier, the accused sounded genuinely surprised but pleased to hear from SS and enjoyed the trip down memory lane that their conversation provided. He appeared genuinely interested in the course her life had taken since they had last seen each other. 816 His responses were unguarded, spontaneous and there was simply no hint of caution or concern at being contacted out of the blue after such a long period of time. Put simply, everything the accused said and the manner in which he said it suggested he was completely at ease and comfortable with hearing from SS. Had the accused been harbouring the knowledge of a clandestine and illegal sexual relationship with SS all those years ago at the time he was contacted by SS it is difficult to understand how not a hint of it surfaced in either of the pretext calls. Further, not only was there no hint of it but the accused volunteered without hesitation his memories of SS and his feelings towards her. For example: • That he had he had kept all of the notes she wrote him until his ex-wife made him throw them out; • That he thought about her all the time, and indeed every day; • That they would have to catch up; • That he did not actually want children at all and it was her who made him feel like a dad and it was something he had never experienced before and it was ‘amazing’, ‘it was one good experience’; • That he really enjoyed kicking the ball around with her in the backyard and it was one of those turning points where he felt like he could be a father; • When he met SS she seemed like a bird with a broken wing trying to fly; that was adorable. 605 The accused gave evidence that this holiday was in the 2006/2007 Christmas period. I regard this difference as explicable by reason of the effect of the passage of time on memory. -- 165 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 164 • That he just wanted to do what he could to help her. • That he felt he needed to protect her, particularly from her sister. • She could call him whenever she wanted. 817 I am satisfied that these were unvarnished and heartfelt sentiments. 818 I have listened carefully to both calls a number of times. The accused answered the second call on 5 July 2023 as he was leaving the gym and the background noise suggests he is in the car. He then arrived home whilst still on the phone. It is obvious that he then warmed up his dinner and started eating it while he is talking to SS. 819 In evaluating the accused’s evidence regarding his responses that are relied upon by the prosecution as admissions that SS went to the Camden Park unit after soccer games and she was the first person he took to Camden Park, I have replayed those passages a number of times. Given the pause and intonation and the accused’s evidence that the occasion that he and SS were there alone when he was constructing his home gym, I am not satisfied that he was agreeing with the proposition that she used to go to Camden Park after soccer games. 820 When SS said ‘I think I was the first one you took there’ she did not tie this occasion to when the accused obtained the keys to the house. The accused had just mentioned that he was building a gym. That was a memory that had been triggered by the conversation. I accept his evidence that the occasion to which he was referring was the one about which he gave evidence, namely when she needed to do homework and someone suggested it would be easier if she did it at his place. This was when he was putting together his multi-station home gym. 821 There is nothing about or in the pretext calls that supports the prosecution case that the accused had been serially sexually abusing SS as a child. To the contrary, the accused reacted and behaved in a manner consistent with someone who had nothing to hide. Whilst at first surprised to hear from SS he sounded genuinely happy to have been contacted by her after so long and the conversation he had was appropriately punctuated by the sort of humour, nostalgia, polite inquiry and banality that I would expect from a person who had been contacted by a child (now woman) with whom he had had a close bond and who led him to believe he could in fact be a father one day. Other matters 822 The Valentine’s Day and Birthday cards were obvious displays of the accused’s sensitivity towards SS and also his sense of humour. There was nothing inappropriate about the giving of those cards to SS and I accept the accused’s evidence that he did not put his name on the Valentine’s Day cards because that was in keeping with tradition. I accept his evidence that the birthday card with the caption ‘how about a birthday kiss pretty thing? Anything else is going to cost you’ was meant for a laugh and VL knew he had bought it. I note that he was asked in -- 166 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 165 cross-examination whether he thought it was appropriate to give this card to a fourteen-year-old girl but the prosecution disavowed any suggestion that this was discreditable conduct evidence. 823 I do not consider that anything turns on the conflict in the evidence of VL and the accused as to whether she went to watch any of his soccer games. It may be that the fact of the matter is somewhere in between; it may be a matter of the accused’s perception that VL did not show the interest he had hoped she would in a sporting activity that was important to him. What is more important is that VL did not corroborate SS’s account of her attendance at every soccer game in the time between the purchase of the Camden Park unit and moving into it. 824 I have explained why the evidence of CAS and CS that the accused cuddled or spooned SS on the couch does not corroborate SS’s evidence on this topic and is not discreditable conduct. I accept the accused’s evidence that it was not physically possible to spoon SS on the couch based on his understanding of the nature of that intimate act. I prefer the accused’s evidence that there was no occasion when he lay on the couch spooning SS as she described or in the manner described by CAS and CS because he could not lie on that couch with his legs straight out. Conclusion 825 Deciding whether an offence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve having to choose between the different versions given by the witnesses. It is certainly not a case of preferring one witness's evidence over that of another. In this sense it is not a contest between the witnesses. The question to be answered in a criminal trial is always a fundamental one and remains at all times whether, on all of the evidence, the prosecution has proved the offence charged against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 826 Having regard to the sheer number of inconsistencies and infirmities in SS’s evidence which undermined her credibility and reliability as identified the prosecution has not discharged its onus of proof. I am satisfied that, as a vulnerable and psychologically damaged child, SS loved the accused. I am satisfied that she became obsessed with him to the point of being sexually jealous of her mother for being in a relationship with him. I am satisfied that in her mind she has twisted what was a loving, caring and completely appropriate stepfather/stepdaughter relationship into a complete fiction of serial sexual abuse in which she became a trained sex doll. That fiction commenced as an allegation of serial rape but morphed into an account of sustained sexual abuse in which she was, for some time an enthusiastic participant. Details of sexual acts continued to be added to the narrative even whilst SS was in the witness box. 827 Whilst I cannot make any firm finding as to whether, by the time she reported the matter to police and subsequently gave evidence, SS believed the fiction she had created or this was, and had always been, a deliberate lie, I am satisfied that she has lied on oath about material aspects of her account in order to maintain her -- 167 of 168 -- [2025] SADC 146 166 narrative of a sexually abusive relationship. It is not necessary, nor possible, to determine how, and in what circumstances, this fiction was created and maintained and whether it could be an unfortunate product of her traumatic childhood or the influence of her father or has some other explanation. 828 Given the overwhelming evidence regarding NS and the lengths to which he went to exercise control and dominion over VL and her family and his hatred of the accused, the possibility that he could manipulate SS into making false allegations against the accused is not necessarily fanciful or absurd. That SS continued to have a relationship with her father, despite being abused by him on a daily basis, raises serious questions about his influence over her. 829 I repeat, it is not necessary, nor possible, to make any firm finding regarding how and in what circumstances this fiction was created and maintained and whether it could be an unfortunate product of her traumatic childhood or the malign influence of her father or has some other explanation. 830 On the prosecution case alone, the verdict must be one of not guilty. 831 However my verdict in this case reflects more than a finding that the evidence in the prosecution case has not proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It reflects more than an inability to reject the accused’s evidence as not reasonably possibly true. It is important to record that I have made positive findings regarding the accused’s evidence and the evidence of the witnesses he called. Noting that the accused bore no onus, I am satisfied that his evidence was truthful, particularly when he denied each and every allegation put to him. Whilst the passage of time has likely affected the reliability of his recollection of some matters of detail, that is an understandable result of the delay in bringing this prosecution and the differences or deficiencies, such as they were, were not material. 832 I find that the accused did not engage in any unlawful sexual acts with SS, nor did he behave in any inappropriate manner towards her. On the contrary, I am satisfied that the accused genuinely loved and cared for SS and made his best efforts to help provide a stable home life for her. Verdict 833 I find the accused not guilty of the charge of sexual abuse of a child. -- 168 of 168 --