King v The Queen

In the case of King v The Queen, the appellant, King, was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria of engaging in an indecent act with a 16-year-old girl and for sexually penetrating a person under the age of 16 years. The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant, a professional photographer, took the victim to a studio for modelling photography. The central issue in the appeal was whether the appellant had the care, supervision or authority over the victim, or was her employer, at the time of the offences. The Court of Appeal was required to determine the legal framework that applied to the circumstances and if the conviction was supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant was in a position of care, supervision or authority over the victim, or if he was her employer, at the time of the offences. The court found that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was not akin to a formal employment relationship or a carer-care recipient relationship. However, the court held that the appellant assumed care or supervision of the victim due to her age and inexperience, and the informal ad hoc arrangement for modelling photography. The court found that the deeming provision in the Crimes Act 1958 was unnecessary to establish the care element. The court also held that the verdict of guilty on the indecent act charge was not inconsistent with the acquittal on the sexual penetration charge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was not akin to a formal employment relationship or a carer-care recipient relationship. However, the court found that the appellant assumed care or supervision of the victim due to her age and inexperience, and the informal ad hoc arrangement for modelling photography. The court held that the deeming provision in the Crimes Act 1958 was unnecessary to establish the care element. The court also held that the verdict of guilty on the indecent act charge was not inconsistent with the acquittal on the sexual penetration charge. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.