Morgan (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] VSCA 227

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0038

RONALD MORGAN (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, LYONS and KIDD JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 227
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Morgan (a pseudonym) [2024] VCC 90 (Judge Tinney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Sexual assault of child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority – Sexual penetration of a stepchild – Use of carriage service to cause offence – Whether jury verdicts inconsistent – Different verdicts explicable by inconsistencies and uncertainties in complainant’s evidence attributable to intellectual deficits – Complainant’s evidence less reliable and plausible in respect of some charges – Verdicts do not represent an affront to logic and commonsense – Whether judge erred in admitting Facebook messages as tendency evidence – Facebook messages support proof of tendency to have sexual interest in complainant and to act on that sexual interest – Facebook messages make it more likely that charged offences took place – Probative value of Facebook messages substantially outweigh prejudicial effect – Leave to appeal refused.

Evidence Act 2008, ss 97(1), 101(2).

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; Erikson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 234; Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms F Fox with Ms T McWilliam
Respondent:		Ms S Lenthall
Solicitors
Applicant:	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
LYONS JA
KIDD JA:

Introduction

On 31 October 2023, a jury found the applicant guilty of three charges of sexual assault of a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (charges 2, 4 and 5)[1] and one charge of sexual penetration of a stepchild (charge 3).[2]
[1]Contrary to s 49E(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 50D(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
The applicant was found not guilty of three charges of sexual assault of a child aged 16 or 17 under care, supervision or authority (charges 1, 7 and 8) and one charge of sexual penetration of a stepchild (charge 6). [3]
[3]Charge 7 was an alternative to charge 6. In these reasons, we shall simply refer to the acquittal on charge 6.
The offending took place on a number of dates between Christmas 2019 and September 2020. All of the offending was against the applicant’s intellectually disabled 16 year old step-daughter (‘the complainant’).
Prior to the trial, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of using a carriage service to cause offence.[4] Between 3 June 2020 and 6 September 2020, the applicant sent the complainant Facebook messages that were sexually suggestive. The messages were in the form of photographs, cartoons and emojis, and included:
•an image of a couple embracing with the text ‘I want you this close to me’;
•an image…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Morgan (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Morgan (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 227
Case: [2025] VSCA 227
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morgan appeals against his conviction for sexual assault of a stepchild, aged 16 or 17, who was under his care, supervision, or authority. The dispute involves the admissibility of Facebook messages used as evidence and the consistency of the jury's verdicts. The Supreme Court of Victoria heard the appeal and considered the relevant legal issues.

The legal issues centred on whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and if the judge erred in admitting certain Facebook messages as tendency evidence. The court examined whether the messages were relevant to prove the accused's tendency to have a sexual interest in the complainant and to act on that interest. The court also assessed if the probative value of the Facebook messages outweighed their prejudicial effect, as required by the Evidence Act 2008.

The court concluded that the jury's verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were explicable by the inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence, which was less reliable due to intellectual deficits. The court held that the Facebook messages supported the proof of the accused's tendency to have a sexual interest in the complainant and to act on that interest. The probative value of the Facebook messages substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect, and therefore, their admission was appropriate. Consequently, the court found no error in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made.

Orders