KN v The Queen

The appeal concerned the interpretation of section 56 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW), which creates the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person. The appellant, KN, was convicted of this offence and other sexual offences involving a young person. The central dispute revolved around whether the acts of sexual intercourse relied upon to prove the specific sexual offences could also be used to establish the "sexual relationship" element of the section 56 offence. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Mossop and Rangiah JJ of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the prosecution was required to prove a sexual relationship separate and apart from the specific sexual acts constituting the sexual offences. This question arose in the context of the Model Provision recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutionalised Sexual Abuse, which aimed to capture ongoing exploitative relationships. The Court also considered whether the approach taken by the prosecution, which relied on the same conduct for both the relationship offence and the specific sexual offences, gave rise to an issue of double jeopardy or a departure from the cardinal principle of jury unanimity.

The Court reasoned that section 56 of the *Crimes Act* was intended to capture a broader pattern of conduct than isolated sexual acts. However, it held that the elements of the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person could be satisfied by the same conduct that constituted the specific sexual offences, provided that conduct demonstrated the existence of such a relationship. The Court found that the jury, by convicting the appellant of the specific sexual offences, had necessarily found that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the young person, and this conduct was sufficient to establish the "sexual relationship" element of the section 56 offence. The Court rejected the argument that this approach violated principles of double jeopardy or jury unanimity, concluding that the jury had made a single finding of guilt based on the evidence presented.

The appeal was dismissed.