R v E, L (No. 2) - [2023] SADC 135

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v E, L (No. 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 135
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Fuller
29 September 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES
Accused charged with three counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, one count of aggravated indecent assault and three counts of indecent assault. All complainants were members of the same cheerleading club at which the accused was an athlete and a coach. It was alleged that that the accused gained access to and developed relationships with the complainants and her position in the club enabled her offending. Complainants and other witnesses gave evidence of alleged uncharged offending involving other cheerleaders at the club, including touching of breasts and buttocks of other cheerleaders, touching her own breasts, sending pictures of her breasts partially exposed and sexualised comments. The uncharged offending included alleged offending when the accused was a child. In 2020, at a competition in America, the complainant in count 2 made disclosures of sexual offending to other cheerleaders, including two of the complainants and they discussed the accused's behaviour. Upon returning to Australia two of the complainants and another witness attended a police station and discussed the matter together with a police officer. Subsequently the complainant in count 2 gave a statement in the presence of the complainant in count 5. Nolle prosequi entered in relation to count 6 at close of prosecution case.
Accused gave evidence in her own defence over 6 days denying the offending but admitting that there were occasions when she touched the breasts and buttocks of other cheerleaders who were her friends over their clothing as a joke and when she was being silly. Accused gave evidence that this type of behaviour was commonplace at the club amongst cheerleaders who were friends. Accused gave evidence of brief period of sexual experimentation with complainant in count 1 in 2013 when she was a child but denied further sexual activity thereafter. Accused denied any sexual interest in her fellow cheerleaders or any sexual motivation for her behaviour in touching other cheerleaders.
Held: Significant body of evidence establishing that the complainants and most of the witnesses had discussed the accused, her behaviour and their respective recollections of it at various times over the years prior to and after the matter was reported to police. There had been contamination of accounts of the majority of the witnesses. Testimony of many witnesses regarding club environment, physical interactions and affection between cheerleaders and allegation that behaviour of accused unique to her and not engaged in by any other cheerleader discredited by social media posts and messages. Evidence of complainants in counts 1, 2, 4 and 7 regarding conduct of accused not credible or reliable. Evidence of accused compelling, coherent and cogent. Evidence of accused truthful and reliable. Evidence of accused on material matters positively accepted and evidence of prosecution witnesses on those matters rejected.
Verdicts: Not guilty on all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 50, 56, 57, 62, 63; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34, referred to.
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; R v E, L [2023] SASC 68; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; Des v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 32; MDM v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 80; Sexton v The Queen [2023] SASCA 73; R v C, M (2014) 246 A Crim R 21; Harkin v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 296; R v Thompson [2018] SASFC 104; Drago (1992) 8 WAR 488; R v M, AS (2013) 118 SASR 160; R v Richards [2016] SASCFC 79; R v Garner (2021) 140 SASR 454; Abrahamson v The Queen (1994) 63 SASR 139; R v Bolte [2010] SASC 112, applied.

R v E, L (NO. 2)
[2023] SADC 135
The Charges

The accused, LE, is charged on the Information with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship With a Child (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 22^nd day of August 2015 and the 15^th day of April 2016 at Rose Park, and other places, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [ER], a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her namely:
a)Kissing her on the lips on more than one occasion;
b)Touching her on the breasts on more than one occasion;
c)Touching her on the buttocks on more than one occasion;
d)Inserting a finger into her vagina on more than one occasion;
e)Causing her to touch your vagina on more than one occasion;
f)Performing an act of cunnilingus upon her on more than one occasion; and
g)Causing her to perform an act of cunnilingus upon you on more than one occasion.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship With a Child (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 22^nd day of August 2015 and the 1^st day of July 2018 at Prospect and Nailsworth, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [DG], a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her namely:
a)Kissing her on the lips on one occasion;
b)Touching her breasts over her clothing on more than one occasion;
c)Touching her genital area over her clothing on more than one occasion;
d)Rubbing your genital area against her body on more than one occasion;
e)Attempting to touch her breasts under her clothing on more than one occasion;
f)Attempting to touch her genital area on more than one occasion;
g)Sending or showing her sexually explicit images on more than one occasion; and
h)Exposing your body to her on more than one occasion.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship With a Child (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 22^nd day of August 2015 and the 31^st day of December 2017 at Nailsworth, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [SB], a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her namely:
a)Touching her on the breasts on more than one occasion;
b)Touching her on the buttocks on more than one occasion;
c)Commenting on her body on more than one occasion.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 1^st day of November 2015 and the 28^th day of February 2016 at Nailsworth, indecently assaulted [SMR] by touching her breasts.
It is further alleged that [SMR] was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offence.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 1^st day of January 2016 and the 30^th day of June 2017 at Nailsworth, indecently assaulted [JG] by touching her breasts.
Sixth Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 28^th day of April 2016 and the 31^st day of December 2017 at Nailsworth, indecently assaulted [LB] by touching her breasts.
Seventh Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
[LE] between the 1^st day of January 2017 and the 31^st day of December 2017 at Nailsworth, indecently assaulted [JB] by touching her breasts.
The Plea
The accused pleaded not guilty and at her election I heard the trial without a jury.
Elements of the Offences Charged
To prove the charge of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
·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.
·Whilst that relationship was in existence, the accused intentionally committed two or more unlawful sexual acts with, or toward, the complainant.
·At the time the accused committed two or more unlawful sexual acts, she was an adult.
·At the time the accused committed two or more unlawful sexual acts, the complainant was a child.
An unlawful sexual relationship is a relationship in which an adult engages in two or more unlawful sexual acts with a child over any period.
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.
In this case, the unlawful sexual acts alleged in each of counts 1–3 are as follows:
Count 1:
·Indecent assault (particulars (a) – (c)), unlawful sexual intercourse (particular (d), (f)), compelled sexual manipulation (particulars (e), (g)).
Count 2:
·Indecent assault (particulars (a) – (d)), attempted indecent assault (particulars (e) and (f)), making a communication for a prurient purpose with the intention of making a child amenable to sexual activity (particular (g)) and an act of gross indecency (particular (h)).
Count 3:
·Indecent assault (all particulars).
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 the offence is an aggravated indecent assault, it must be proved that the victim was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offence.
Act of Gross Indecency
It is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency towards or in the presence of a person under the age of 16.
To prove the charge of gross indecency, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an act with, towards, or in the presence of the complainant in circumstances which make it grossly indecent. It must be proved that the complainant was under 16 years of age at the relevant time. It must be something more than minor or trivial indecency. The conduct must be such as to be characterised not only as indecent, but as grossly indecent.
It must be proved that the act was not only an indecent act but was a grossly indecent act. In this context, the word gross means something that is more than minor. It must be grossly indecent by reasonable, contemporary standards. Whether an assault is grossly indecent is for me to determine by reference to prevailing community standards of what is considered grossly indecent.
Compelled Sexual Manipulation
This offence has four elements. In this case, the prosecution must prove:
·The accused compelled a person to engage in or continue to engage in an act of sexual manipulation of the accused (in this case causing ER to touch the accused’s vagina and causing ER to perform an act of cunnilingus upon the accused).
·The accused did this for a prurient purpose.
·The other person did not consent to engaging in the act or had withdrawn consent to the act.
·The accused knew or was recklessly indifferent to the fact that the other person did not consent.
Making a communication for a prurient purpose intending to make a child amenable to sexual activity
The prosecution must prove the following elements:
·The accused made a communication;
·She did so for a prurient purpose;
·She did so with the intention of making a child (that is a person under the age of 17 years) amenable to sexual activity.
To make a child amenable is to influence the child to yield, submit or cooperate. The conduct must be deliberate.[1] The prosecution is not required to prove that the person to whom the communication is made is in fact a child. The essence of the offence is the making of a communication with the relevant intention. A prurient purpose must accompany the conduct intended to make a child amenable to sexual activity. A prurient purpose is defined in s 62 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’) as follows:
A person acts for a prurient purpose if the person acts with the intention of satisfying his or her own desire for sexual arousal or gratification or of providing sexual arousal or gratification for someone else.
[1] R v Richards [2016] SASCFC 79 at [21] per Kourakis CJ.
Issues in Dispute
The issues in dispute at trial were as follows:
1. The scope and nature of the sexual contact between the accused and ER and whether it was in fact limited to a brief period in 2013 when the accused was also a child and could not be guilty of an offence against section 50 CLCA.
2. Whether any unlawful sexual acts committed against DG in fact happened and if so, in relation to the unlawful sexual acts comprising:
2.1The touching of breasts or buttocks - whether they occurred in circumstances of indecency and;
2.2The sending of sexually explicit photographs - whether a photograph of the accused partially showing her breasts but with her nipples covered is a sexually explicit photograph and therefore a communication for a prurient purpose intending to make a child amenable to sexual activity and;
2.3The exposing of the accused’s body on more than one occasion – whether the accused changing in her room with her back to DG and dropping her towel so DG could see the back of her naked body was accidental and in any event whether such an act, if intentional, constitutes an act of gross indecency.
3.Whether the touching of the breasts and buttocks of other athletes in fact occurred on the specific occasions alleged and if so whether that touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
General Directions
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 Gardi,[2] whilst the Act is silent as to any requirement regarding the contents of the reasons for verdicts, such requirements are established in a number of 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.
[2] [2015] SASC 186.
The general directions were summarised by Lovell J in R v Gardi. 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 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.
The accused gave evidence. In doing so, she assumed no onus. Her evidence is to be treated in the same way as any other witness in the trial, but I can give her what credit I consider appropriate for adopting a course she was not obliged to adopt. During the course of her evidence, the accused denied allegations of sexual offending by reference to her character and being the sort of person who would not behave that way. In doing, it is open to infer she was asserting that she was of good character. That evidence was not challenged. In accordance with settled authority, I direct myself that evidence of good character has probative significance in assessing the likelihood of the accused committing the offences charged and in assessing the credibility of her evidence in the witness box. However, in the circumstances of this case, the weight to be attached to the evidence of the accused that she was of good character is limited because it was a self-assessment or evaluation. I consider that its probative value is negligible.
The accused is charged with 7 counts. I must consider each count separately on its merits, and only by reference to the evidence relating to that count.
If I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of one count, I must not reason that she is therefore the sort of person who would have committed or is likely to have committed any or all of the other offences alleged.
Overview of the Prosecution Case
The accused was born on 22 August 1997. The accused was heavily involved in the sport of cheerleading at the time of the alleged offending. She was a member of the cheerleading club, AASCC. Each of the complainants was also involved in cheerleading either as fellow athletes or athletes whom the accused coached. Some were also coaches.
On the prosecution case, through her involvement in cheerleading, the accused gained access to and developed relationships with the complainants. Her position within the cheerleading club enabled her offending.
The charged offending is alleged to have occurred when the accused was aged between 18 and 20 years. She was looked up to by many of the other athletes and members of the club and was an outstanding athlete. She was charismatic, inclusive and friendly and well known among her contemporaries and the younger athletes.
The accused started as an athlete at the AASCC when she was a child and later became a coach of particular teams or specialised groups. The accused touched other athletes and made comments which were not part of the sport of cheerleading.
The first complainant, ER, was born on 15 April 1999. She joined AASCC in 2012 when she was 12 years of age. She and the accused became good friends and spent time together outside of cheerleading. ER was just under 2 years younger than the accused. When ER was 14 years of age and the accused was 15, turning 16 years of age, their relationship became sexual. This sexual relationship continued after the accused turned 18 years of age. The sexual conduct alleged to have occurred before the accused turned 18 years of age is uncharged offending. The sexual conduct involved the accused kissing ER on the lips, touching her bottom, touching her breasts, inserting a finger into her vagina and multiple acts of cunnilingus. On one occasion when ER and the accused were at a staff retreat at Milang, mutual acts of cunnilingus occurred, and the accused inserted her finger into ER’s vagina. In 2015, ER and the accused were coaching a team together called ‘Glitter’. The relationship between ER and the accused changed and became more abusive and controlling. The accused manipulated and controlled ER and told her not to tell anyone about their relationship. In August 2016, ER ended the relationship and ceased contact.

The second complainant is DG, born 4 February 2003. She started as an athlete at AASCC in 2010 when she was around 7 years of age and left in 2020. She came to know the accused, connected with her on social media and started to see her socially outside of cheerleading. She was a member of the Glitter team in 2015. There were occasions when she and the accused were on a couch in an area in the club and the accused touched her breasts. From mid-2015, DG began spending more time with the accused and slept over at her house on a number of occasions. She slept in the accused’s bed. During those sleepovers, the accused kissed her on the lips and attempted to engage in other sexual acts with her, including touching her breasts, rubbing her vagina on DG’s body and touching DG’s vagina over the top of her clothing. The accused would also drop her towel to expose herself after she had been in the shower and on other occasions would quickly flash parts of her naked body. The accused sent DG some pictures of herself semi-naked via Snapchat on a number of occasions.
The third complainant is SB. She was born on 25 January 2001. She joined AASCC in 2013 when she was 13 years of age. In 2015 and 2016, the accused was her coach. During that period the accused touched her breasts and bottom in the AASCC gym and made sexualised comments about her body.
The fourth complainant is SMR. She was born on 30 June 2003. She started at AASCC when she was eight years of age and in 2015 became a member of the Glitter team. SMR and the accused started spending time together and saw each other outside cheerleading. Towards the end of 2015, early 2016 SMR was at ER’s house with a number of other athletes, including DG. They spent the day swimming together and later they were in the bathroom when the accused grabbed SMR’s breasts over the top of her bathers.
This type of touching was not isolated and occurred on other occasions.
The fifth complainant is JG. She was born on 30 December 1999. When she was around 11 years of age she joined AASCC. She knew of the accused through school but became close friends with her whilst cheerleading at the club. In 2015, JG was a member of the Glitter team. The accused said to JG ‘your boobs look big’ or ‘your boobs look bigger’ and grabbed her breasts over the top of her clothing. JG also witnessed the sexualised behaviour and comments of the accused towards other athletes and her interaction with ER.
The sixth and seventh complainants are LB and JB. They are twins who were born on 28 April 2003. They joined AASCC and the accused was their coach for a period of time. They would spend time outside the club with the accused, other athletes and their older sister CB. The accused regularly touched LB’s breasts in the club. On the first occasion this happened, the accused said, ‘oh my god, you have grown boobs’. The accused also touched JB’s breasts on a number of occasions and in particular on one occasion grabbed her breasts and said ‘oh [JB] you’re getting older’.
Other uncharged acts of indecent assault were perpetrated by the accused.
In 2020, a number of the witnesses were in Palm Springs, USA for a cheerleading competition. Whilst in Palm Springs, a number of the cheerleading girls discussed the accused and her behaviour. When they returned to Adelaide, a report was made to the police about the accused and her behaviour.
The Evidence
A large number of exhibits were tendered during the course of the trial.
The following table lists those exhibits and a description of their contents.
Exhibit Summary

Exhibit Number

Witness

Counsel

Description

P1

By consent

Prosecution

AGE CHART

Ages of LE, ER, DG, SB, SMR, JG, LB and JB from 2011 to 2018.

P2

JL

Prosecution

SITE PLAN OF 2A JONES STREET, NAILSWORTH

P3

JL

Prosecution

PHOTO BOOKLET OF 2A JONES STREET GYM

D4

JL

Defence

BUNDLE OF FACEBOOK PAGE POSTS

D5

JL

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JL AND TWO OTHERS

D6

JL

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF JL WITH ANOTHER ATHLETE

D7

JL

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JL WITH THREE OTHER ATHLETES FROM THE CLUB

D8

JL

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF SA COACH ET WITH YOUNG ATHLETE

D9

JL

Defence

SERIES OF EMAILS FROM JL AND JF TO LE JANUARY 2017

D10

RP

Defence

SMS MESSAGED EXCHANGED BETWEEN RP AND LE IN 2016 AND 2017

P11

ER

Prosecution

FLOOR PLAN OF LE’s FAMILY HOME

P12

ER

Prosecution

DRAWING OF ER’s BEDROOM IN THE R FAMILY HOME

P13

ER

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF ER TAKEN AFTER 2013 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP

P14

ER

Prosecution

EMAIL SENT BY LE TO ER

P15

ER

Prosecution

FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF ER AND LE

P16

ER

Prosecution

FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF ER LEG

P17

ER

Prosecution

SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF ER

P18

ER

Prosecution

DRAWING OF PART OF MILANG BEACH HOUSE

P19

ER

Prosecution

FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF POOL PARTY

P20

ER

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT GREENACRES GYM

P21

ER

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF CAKE INCIDENT

P22

ER

Prosecution

BUNDLE OF TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN ER AND LE BETWEEN 27/7/2016 AND 25/8/2016

P23

ER

Prosecution

VIDEO TAKEN ON CHEERLEADING TRIP

P24

ER

Prosecution

SECOND VIDEO TAKEN ON CHEERLEADING TRIP

D25

ER

Defence counsel

FACEBOOK GROUP CHAT

D26

ER

Defence counsel

PHOTOGRAPH FROM JG’S 21ST BIRTHDAY

D27

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE IN A HOTEL ROOM

D28

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE IN WHICH ER IS HOLDING LE

D29

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE ON GOLD COAST 2015 TRIP

D30

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE AND ER 19 MARCH 2015

D31

ER

Defence

INSTAGRAM POST BY JG

D32

ER

Defence

GROUP CHAT BETWEEN LE, ER AND EW

D33

ER

Defence

PHOTO OF ER WITH OTHER CHEERLEADERS ON 19/2/2016

D34

ER

Defence

GROUP CHAT 26/7/2016

D35

ER

Defence

TWO PAGE GROUP CHAT DATED 24/9/2012

D36

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH FROM SYDNEY BATTLE COMPETITION 7/2016

D37

ER

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, ER AND OTHER CHEERLEADERS

P38

DG

Prosecution

MESSAGES BETWEEN DG AND LE JUNE 2015

P39

DG

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND LE

P40

DG

Prosecution

DIAGRAM OF LE BEDROOM DRAWN BY DG

P41

DG

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE WITH BOTTOM AND LEGS SHOWING

P42

DG

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR, LE AND DG IN LE’S BEDROOM

P43

DG

Prosecution

SEVEN SNAPCHAT PHOTOS

P44

DG

Prosecution

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY DG OF LE AND THEN LE AND DG

D45

DG

Defence

VIDEO OF DG AND LE WITH DEODORANT

D46

DG

Defence

VIDEO IN BACKYARD OF LE’s HOME

D47

DG

Defence

VIDEO TAKEN IN LE’s BEDROOM

D48

DG

Defence

VIDEO AT NAILSWORTH GYM OF DG AND LE

D49

DG

Defence

TWO VIDEOS OF A PHONE SHOWING A VIDEO OF LE IN THE BATH

D50

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND SMR, AND SECOND PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR AND IS

D51

DG

Defence

ONE PAGE CONTAINING PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND JL AND ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH OF JL, SB AND JG

D52

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN JANUARY 2020 OF DG, IS, JG AND SMR

D53

DG

Defence

PHOTO OF DG AND SMR POSTED JUNE 2020

D54

DG

Defence

THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DG AND OTHERS

D55

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH PREVIOUSLY POSTED BY JG

D56

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SUNNY'S PIZZA BAR

D57

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND SMR

D58

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SEAMORE'S OF DG AND JG

D59

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR, RO NOVEMBER 2020

D60

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF IS WITH 'BIRTHDAY DESSERT'

D61

DG

Defence

THREE PHOTOGRAPHS, TWO OF WHICH ARE MT AND SB, THIRD PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND JG DATED 5/02/2021

D62

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND DG ON 20/02/2021

D63

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY DG AT IS 18TH BIRTHDAY

D64

DG

Defence

POST BY RO

D65

DG

Defence

POST BY JG OF PHOTO OF RO

D66

DG

Defence

THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF SB AND MT 21ST BIRTHDAY PARTY

D67

DG

Defence

POST BY SB ON 2/01/2022

D68

DG

Defence

TWO POSTS, ONE BY SB AND ONE BY SMR.

D69

DG

Defence

THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF POSTS ABOUT TRIPS TO BLACK POINT

D70

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOS TAKEN AT SB’s BIRTHDAY

D71

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF DG

D72

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THAI RESTAURANT

D73

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND SMR

D74

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN NOOSA

D75

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG WITH SMR AT GRAPEVINE FESTIVAL

D76

DG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT DG 2023 BIRTHDAY

D77

DG

Defence

TWO PAGES OF SCREENSHOTS OF MESSENGER GROUP CHAT

D78

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF A POST BY DG WISHING LE HAPPY BIRTHDAY

D79

DG

Defence

POST BY DG DATED 22/8/2016

D80

DG

Defence

SNAPCHAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN DG AND LE ON 27/11/2016

D81

DG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ATHLETES INCLUDING DG POSING

D82

DG

Defence

POST 9/1/2015 BY AASCC

D83

DG

Defence

SNAPCHAT MESSAGE BETWEEN DG AND LE AUGUST 2017

D84

DG

Defence

HAPPY BIRTHDAY POST FROM DG TO LE

P85

SB

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE TAKEN BY SB

P86

SB

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF SB, ROE AND MT IN LE'S LIVING ROOM

P87

SB

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE FROM GOLD COAST TRIP

D88

SB

Defence

FACEBOOK CONVERSATION BETWEEN SB AND LE 30/11/2016

D89

SB

Defence

THREE PAGES OF IMAGES OF SB AND CHEER GIRLS

P90

ES

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH SENT TO ES BY LE VIA MESSENGER

P91

ES

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE TOPLESS

P92

ES

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE AND ER

P93

ES

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE IN OFFICE AT NAILSWORTH GYM

P94

ES

Prosecution

MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN LE AND ES

P95

ES

Prosecution

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE AND DG FROM MESSENGER CHAT SCREENSHOTS

P96

ES

Prosecution

MESSENGER CHAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN ES, LE, CM AND MS CB

D97

ES

Defence

MESSENGER GROUP CHAT DATED 26/1/2018 BETWEEN LE, ES AND CB

D98

ES

Defence

FACEBOOK CONTENT FROM ES'S PAGE 8/6/2018

D99

ES

Defence

SCREENSHOTS OF MESSENGER CHAT BETWEEN LE AND ES

D100

ES

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ES AND LE AND PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE, ER AND CB

D101

ES

Defence

POST OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF ES AND JB

D102

ES

Defence

POST ON SB FACEBOOK PAGE 25/1/2017

D103

ES

Defence

POST DATED 14/6/2015 PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, ER, TM AND LE

D104

ES

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE, ES AND LF

D105

ES

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT MILANG COACH RETREAT 2016

D106

ES

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE AND THE B TWINS

D107

ES

Defence

FACEBOOK MESSAGE FROM ES TO LE DATED 22/8/2017

P108

IS

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY IS OF LE AT LE'S HOME

P109

IS

Prosecution

SNAPCHAT SCREENSHOT FROM IS'S SNAPCHAT ACCOUNT

P110

IS

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND LE AT IS'S HOUSE

D111

IS

Defence

SCREENSHOTS OF MESSAGES BETWEEN IS AND LE IN JUNE 2016

P112

SMR

Prosecution

FOUR PAGES OF SCREENSHOTS TAKEN BY SMR

P113

SMR

Prosecution

SCREENSHOT OF PHOTO TAKEN BY SMR

P114

SMR

Prosecution

MESSAGE SENT BY LE TO SMR

D115

SMR

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR AND TH 2018

D116

SMR

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS 6/10/2016

D117

SMR

Defence

IMESSAGES 6 DECEMBER 2015

D118

SMR

Defence

PHOTOGRAPHS FROM POOL DAY

D119

SMR

Defence

FACEBOOK MESSAGES FROM LIFE ADVICE 101 GROUP 31/1/2018

D120

SMR

Defence

SNAPCHAT AND INSTAGRAM POSTS OF SMR

P121

CB

Prosecution

SEVEN PAGES OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER MESSAGES BETWEEN LE AND CB

P122

CB

Prosecution

FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN LE AND CB

D123

CB

Defence

FIVE NOTIFICATIONS SHOWING MESSAGES UNSENT BY CB

D124

JB

Defence

POST WITH PICTURE OF JB AND LB

D125

JB

Defence

POST WITH PHOTOGRAPH OF JB AND JzB

D126

JB

Defence

POST WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 10/5/2017

D127

JB

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF LB

D128

JB

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JB FEBRUARY 2015

D129

JB

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JB JANUARY 2015

D130

JB

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF STRETCHING

P131

JG

Prosecution

PHOTO BOOTH PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MIDYEAR PARTY

P132

JG

Prosecution

SCREENSHOT OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN LE AND JG

P133

JG

Prosecution

FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN ER AND JG

D134

JG

Defence

INSTAGRAM POST WITH PHOTOS OF JG AND DG

D135

JG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AT WHITE LIES PARTY

D136

JG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND RO AT NAILSWORTH GYM

D137

JG

Defence

SCREENSHOT OF GROUP CHAT CREATED BY JG

D138

JG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG HOLDING IK IN 2018

D139

JG

Defence

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF JG AND IK

D140

JG

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF JG WITH JG AND CC

MFI D141

JG

Defence

STORY FROM DG’S ISTAGRAM ACCOUNT

P142

RO

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE, RO AND GT

P143

RO

Prosecution

SCREENSHOT OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN RO AND LE

P144

RO

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE AT RO'S MOTHER'S HOUSE

P145

RO

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF LE IN RO'S ROOM

P146

RO

Prosecution

FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE SENT TO RO BY LE

P147

RO

Prosecution

VIDEO OF LE AT ATHLETE AREA IN NAILSWORTH GYM

P148

RO

Prosecution

PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND LE IN LE'S ROOM IN 2014

D149

RO

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF TH AND SMR AT RO'S FATHER'S HOUSE IN MALVERN

D150

RO

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND LE

D151

RO

Defence

PHOTO OF RO, HER SISTER AND FATHER POSTED BY JG

D152

RO

Defence

PHOTO OF RO AND LE

D153

RO

Defence

PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE AND RO

D154

RO

Defence

POST BY RO DATED AUGUST 2017

D155

IZ

Defence

BIRTHDAY POST BY IZ TO LE

D156

IZ

Defence

FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN IZ AND LE 2015

D157

IZ

Defence

PHOTO TAKEN AT IZ’s PARENTS’ HOUSE OF LE, TS AND IZ

D158

IZ

Defence

PHOTOGRAPH OF IZ AND LE AT IZ’S 18TH BIRTHDAY PARTY

P159

Prosecution

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS

I will now summarise the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution. The summary is lengthy but necessary as almost every witness was either a complainant, a complainant with respect to an uncharged act or acts or a witness to the alleged offending (charged and uncharged). I made orders for special arrangements to be made for the taking of the evidence of the following witnesses, ER,[3] DG,[4] SB,[5] SMR,[6] JB,[7] LB,[8] and JG.[9] Pursuant to s 13A (12) Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (‘Evidence Act’), I direct myself that these arrangements do not permit me to draw any inference adverse to the accused and nor do they influence the weight to be given to the evidence of the witnesses for whom those special arrangements were made.
[3]     ER’s evidence was recorded, the court was closed and she was accompanied by a court companion from the Victim Support Service.
[4]     DG’s evidence was recorded, the court was closed and she was accompanied by a court companion from the Victim Support Service.
[5]     SB’s evidence was recorded and the court was closed.
[6]     SMR’s evidence was recorded, a one way screen was erected and the court was closed.
[7]     JB gave her evidence via CCTV and the court was closed and her evidence was recorded.
[8]     LB gave her evidence via CCTV and the court was closed and her evidence was recorded.
[9]     JG’s evidence was recorded, a one-way screen was erected and the court was closed.
JL (owner and manager of cheerleading club)
JL was the owner and manager of AASCC. The club is now trading as OSA. She started the business in 2009 with RP. They were in partnership until 2016 when RP left and JL’s husband Jamie became a partner. The club was like a large dance school training children in competitive cheerleading.[10]
[10] T 23-24.
When AASCC started, the club would hire school gymnasiums. In July 2011, the club rented a warehouse at Muller Road in Greenacres. Later, mid-2014, the club moved to a bigger location at 2A Jones Street Nailsworth.[11]
[11] T 25.
JL explained the sport of cheerleading. All star cheerleading is an American style of cheerleading which has an element of dance and tumble and ‘stunting’ which is the throwing of an athlete in the air and then catching the athlete.[12]
[12] T 26.
JL said there was a large age range in the athletes, from three years of age through to adults. The majority of the athletes were in the 12-14 age group and predominantly female. Between 2015 and 2017 AASCC had around 200 athletes.[13]
[13] T 27.
AASCC ran cheerleading, tumbling, stunting and flyer classes. A flyer is an athlete who is lifted into the air and then caught.[14] Teams would be separated based on age and skill. Accordingly, it was possible to have a wide range of ages in the one team. A team was comprised of between 8 and 30 athletes. A team would train at least twice a week plus additional classes depending upon the level the team had attained.[15]
[14] T 27-28.
[15] T 28.
AASCC operated 6 and 7 days a week. When busy, Sunday trainings would be scheduled. In addition to training, intra and interstate competitions would take place. Every two years teams would travel overseas for competitions.[16]
[16] T 29.
Each team always had two coaches. In 2009, when AASCC started, JL and RP were the coaches. Around 2011 or 2012 AASCC started hiring casuals to help out with the coaching. The coaches were sourced from the existing athletes and were selected based on their good leadership skills, experience in dance or gymnastics or age. Once the coaches had been working with them for a while, they would obtain working with children, first aid and specific cheerleading credentials. Only a few athletes would be involved in coaching.[17]
[17] T 31.
A plan of the Nailsworth gym and photo booklet were tendered and JL explained the layout and use of the rooms within the gym: P2 and P3. JL identified the staff room used by coaches, administration and reception staff. JL would usually be in the staff room between 9am and 5pm and the coaches would start around 3pm and would be in that room before starting classes.[18]
[18] T 36-37.
JL also identified the athlete area which she said was an area where the athletes would ‘hang out’ before starting training.[19]For the most part the coaches hung out in the staff area but if they were coaches and athletes they may be in the athlete area.[20]The athlete area was not a place where the athletes would usually get changed, that occurred in the bathrooms. However, if they changed a top over or something like that, this might take place in the athlete area.[21] Where athletes changed was a practice and not a requirement.[22]
[19] T 38-39.
[20] T 39.
[21] T 41.
[22] T 42.
AASCC did not have a clothing policy and athletes were free to wear their clothing of choice, but there were club T-shirts and crop tops and other clothing available for purchase.[23]
[23] T 42
Generally speaking, during training time, there were a number of athletes in the gymnasium area.[24]
[24] T 43.
JL said that the accused was an athlete at the gym from a young age, between 10 and 12 years of age and was a coach for a few years. She was an athlete from around 2010 to 2017. JL could not recall when the accused started coaching but it was when the business was being operated from Greenacres. At all times when she was coaching, she was also an athlete.[25]
[25] T 46-47.
The accused first coached a level 2 junior team called Starburst. The team had athletes 11 or 12 years of age and under. The accused started coaching alongside either JL or RP and subsequently coached a team with another athlete.[26] JL said that coaches were required to have a coaching plan prepared before class. The coaches would discuss the plans with JL before training commenced.[27]
[26] T 48.
[27] T 49.

The first team that the accused coached without JL or RP was the Glitter team. The other coach of that team was ER. ER was another athlete who started coaching around the same time as the accused.[28]The Glitter team was a medium sized team with numbers ranging from 18 up to the high twenties.[29]It was a senior team, so the ages of the athletes ranged from 9 or 10 to 17 or 18 years of age. That team would have trained twice a week.[30] JL said the members of the Glitter team included DG, SB, SR, JG, LB and JB.[31]
[28] T 49.
[29] T 50.
[30] T 51.
[31] T 52-53.
In 2015, the accused was at the gym a minimum of four days a week.[32] She stopped coaching because, as an employee, JL said the accused was not pulling her weight. The accused relied on others to plan classes.[33]
[32] T 52.
[33] T 53-54
JL said that the main standard of conduct that they tried to enforce was that there had to be a professional relationship with the athletes and should not have a personal relationship with young athletes outside of the club. This was commonly spoken about at staff meetings and would have been in the guidebooks when staff training was taking place.[34]
[34] T 54.
JL said there was a definitely a grey area when an athlete who was friends with other athletes became a coach. JL said:
So there was a grey area because sometimes you’re going to be friends with athletes because you’ll be on a team with one person, but you won’t necessarily coach them. There definitely is a grey area there, but for the most part we were always referring to young athletes. So if you’re a 16, 17, 18-year-old coach and you’re coaching the minis, we wouldn’t expect you to be hanging out with the mini or youth athletes outside. That’s kind of what I mean.[35]
[35] T 55, 19-28.
JL said that conversations about standards of conduct would occur at least once a year at staff inductions and throughout the season if it needed to be addressed.[36] JL said there were a couple of incidents with the accused when she was coaching that:
…we noticed she was – it looked like she was crossing some boundaries and we spoke to her a couple of times like ‘Hey, just remember that like you need to remain professional, and we don’t want the kids to think you have favourites’. So, yeah, we just noticed some closer personal relationships with some of the athletes at the time so it was brought up.[37]
[36] T 55.
[37] T 56, 2-10.
JL said there were policies about social media for coaches. Adult coaches were told that they should not be following any athletes under the age of 18 on social media or engaging with them on social media because they were role models.[38]
[38] T 56.
AASCC had a presence on Instagram and Facebook.[39]
[39] T 56.
Parent were not encouraged to remain whilst their children trained so as to avoid distraction.[40]
[40] T 57.
JL said she did not observe any inappropriate conduct by the accused towards other athletes whilst she was coaching.[41]
[41] T 57.
JL said that the relationship between the accused and ER was very close when they were athletes and coaches together. They would always sit together at staff meetings and would come to class together.[42] JL said that towards the end of ER’s time at AASCC she seemed very tired, drained and sad. She left in 2016.[43]
Cross-examination
[42] T 58.
[43] T 58.
JL said she had no experience in running a cheerleading club before starting AASCC with RP. She had just finished a marketing degree and RP had finished a teaching degree.[44]
[44] T 60.
JL agreed that the accused was very committed to cheerleading and was at the club four or five days a week. If she had a training or coaching session she would not leave until around 9pm. The accused was very dedicated to the club. JL agreed that cheerleading would become quite consuming for the athletes, and many would become obsessed with it.[45] Many of the athletes formed close friendships with other athletes but there were occasional falling outs.[46]
[45] T 61.
[46] T 61-62.
JL denied that the focus of the club was on winning, rather it was on promoting the lifestyle and environment the athletes would enjoy at the club.[47]JL said, ‘it’s not part of our business to sell winning’.[48]JL agreed that there were posts on Facebook recording medals that have been won by athletes but she said these were only posted recently following a request by parents of athletes.[49]
[47] T 63-64.
[48] T 66, 4-5.
[49] T 66.
JL said that when the female athletes were competing they wore ‘minimal’ makeup, ‘it’s just like a little bit of glitter and some eyelashes sometimes’.[50] For competitions, the female athletes wore skirts and tops and the older athletes would sometimes have their midriff exposed.[51] In competitions, athletes in the junior teams were not permitted to expose their midriff.[52] JL was shown D4 and agreed that they were posts from the OSA South Australia Facebook page.[53] She agreed that the athletes in D4 were wearing competition costumes and had lipstick and eye shadow on and make-up. The girls in the photographs were between 11 and 14 years of age.[54] Some of the athletes used fake tan but it was not required or encouraged.[55] A make-up kit containing eye glitter and lipstick was provided with the uniform and the athletes were told they must wear their hair in a high neat ponytail.[56] JL agreed that the athlete shown in photograph 8 of D4 was wearing fake eyelashes but that was not a requirement.[57] JL said that the older girls liked to wear foundation, blush, contour and eyeshadow.[58]
[50] T 66, 34-38, T 67, 1.
[51] T 67.
[52] T 81.
[53] T 68.
[54] T 69.
[55] T 86.
[56] T 87.
[57] T 87.
[58] T 88.
JL said that there were girls as young as 8 – 10 years of age in the Glitter team even though it was a senior team. She said that age range was set by the competition organisers. A chronological age was not commensurate with cheerleading ability.[59] JL said that athletes as young as 3 years of age could compete. Although the wearing of make-up was uniform so all athletes looked the same, JL could not remember if the athletes in the tiny division wore make-up.[60]
[59] T 70.
[60] T 72.
JL said that a flyer’s weight did not make any difference to their ability to perform.[61]She said that some of the athletes who were ‘bases’ were smaller than the flyers but had a really good technique.[62]
[61] T 77.
[62] T 78.
JL agreed that there could be thirty girls arriving for a class at a particular time and they would need to change into their cheerleading clothes. However she said they did not all arrive at the same time. JL said the girls would use the two bathroom cubicles to get changed.[63]
[63] T 91.
JL said that both ER and the accused were spoken to about not being friends with the athletes because they were hanging out a lot together and coaching together. JL could not recall if this was a scheduled meeting, or they were just asked to come in to discuss the matter before their class started.[64] The context of the conversation about not having favourites was to ensure that they could coach efficiently. JL explained that if an athlete did not respect the coach and vice-versa the team would not be productive.[65]
[64] T 93.
[65] T 96.
JL agreed that she was friendly towards the athletes she coached and said she had a joking manner. She was shown D5 and agreed she and RP were wearing a school uniform and that this was meant to be a joke.[66]
[66] T 94-95.
JL agreed that coaches would now and then show affection to athletes. She agreed that it was quite common before and after class in 2015. She agreed that one athlete might pick another one up and hug them or put them on their hip. She was then shown D6 and agreed that the photographs depicted her giving an athlete a piggyback.[67] JL agreed that the photographs captured moments that happen commonly in the gym.[68]
[67] T 98-99.
[68] T 100.
JL was then shown a photograph taken in May 2019 at the national championships with a junior athlete sitting on her lap and others sitting next to her: D7. She agreed that the sort of interaction depicted in D4 would occur when the accused was at the club.[69]
[69] T 112-113.
JL agreed that in 2017 AASCC employed a full-time coach. JL identified her as ET and she is depicted in D8. ET was holding a junior athlete, under 8 years of age, on her hip.[70]
[70] T 116.
JL agreed that the accused was an energetic person and agreed that she was a bit goofy, that is bubbly, fun and could be silly.[71]The accused had a sense of humour.[72]
[71] T 117.
[72] T 118.
JL said that there was a period when the business was looking to expand into running cheerleading in schools. It was possible that there was a conversation with accused about being involved in that.[73] JL was shown a series of emails between herself and the accused from January 2017: D9. JL agreed that in those emails she raised with the accused the idea that she might be involved in delivering a cheerleading program in schools.[74]
[73] T 119.
[74] T 121.
JL also agreed that in her email of 17 January 2017, she said there were two full-time coaching staff and as a result extremely limited hours for casual cheerleading coaches at Nailsworth.[75] It was put to JL that it was not because the accused was not pulling her weight as a coach that she did not continue as a coach at AASCC. She said that she did not ‘know exactly, but I wonder whether that was our angle on saying that we don’t have much here but like hey if you’re really really keen, prove it, help us get this cheer program up and running at schools’.[76]
[75] T 121.
[76] T 122, 21-24.
JL was shown an email dated 9 January 2017 from the accused to JL’s husband in which she thanked him for the offer of casual employment but not at the gym located in the South. She agreed that the accused was asking for more hours at the Nailsworth gym. JL said she could not recall if ER also asked for more hours.[77]
[77] T 123.
JL went on a trip to Palm Springs in 2020 with a number of the cheerleading athletes including RO, JG, DG and IS. The accused had left the club by then.[78]
[78] T 125.
JL agreed that ER was an excellent cheerleader, and it was sad to see her go.[79]
Re-examination
[79] T 127.
JL said that athletes leaving the club was a regular occurrence.[80]
[80] T 128.
RP
RP was the co-founder and owner of AASCC until the end of 2016. RP’s previous work was as a primary school teacher. When AASCC started, she coached, undertook administrative and accounting tasks and organise and ran events. She was initially working part-time but moved to full time in 2011 or 2012. She gave birth to her daughter in 2015 and at the end of 2016 she sold the share of her business to JL’s husband.[81] After leaving the business, she returned only a handful of times to help start a pre-school program in the mornings.[82]
[81] T 130-132.
[82] T 132.
The membership of AASCC increased to between 150-200 members by the time RP left the business.[83] Although the age range was from pre-school to adult, the large majority of members were between 10 and 17 years of age.[84] 98-99% of members were female. At its peak, there were 10-15 teams broken up into six levels and age groups.[85]
[83] T 133.
[84] T 133.
[85] T 134.
RP said that predominantly all of their coaches started as athletes and coached and competed as well. RP and JL determined who would be coaches and there were usually two coaches per team.[86] RP and JL coached alongside some of the athlete coaches in order to train them how to coach effectively and manage the team.[87]
[86] T 134.
[87] T 135.
The Australian All Star Cheerleading Federation offered a course which provided coaching credentials. AASCC provided an induction to their coaches which involved going through the induction manual with them. This included occupational health and safety issues and teaching tips. There was also a behaviour management protocol which was a step system the coaches could refer to if they had issues with the students in their class. Copies of the manual were given to the coaches and there was an induction checklist.[88]
[88] T 135-136.
RP said that at ‘some point’ there was information in the manual about the use of social media by coaches. She said they also mentioned it verbally to the coaches and discouraged the coaches from being friends with other athletes on their personal social media.[89] I asked RP what happened in the situation where an athlete was already friends with another athlete on social media and then became a coach. She said, ‘I’m not sure what we advised at the time, sorry I can’t remember’.[90]
[89] T 136.
[90] T 137, 23-27.
RP said the accused started at AASCC as an athlete when she was 12 years old and after a few years she became a coach. At a guess that was when she was 15 or 16 years old. RP coached alongside the accused at the start of 2015. The team the accused coached in 2015 was Junior Starbursts. The accused was offered anywhere from 4-10 hours coaching on a casual basis. RP did not observe any inappropriate behaviour by the accused towards other athletes.[91]
[91] T 139-140.
RP said that at one point around 2015 at the Nailsworth gym they spoke to the accused about the friendship relationship she had with athletes.[92] RP described the conversation as follows:
I believe we spoke to her about just being mindful about not having too much of a friendship relationship and socialising with the athletes that she was coaching, as it – we were just concerned about managing the team and any issues she might come into if she had a bit more of a personal sort of socialising relationship with them.[93]
[92] T 141, 142.
[93] T 141, 37-38, T 142, 1-5.
RP said that there were a number of reasons why this conversation took place:
There were a number of things, we were just – we didn’t want any favouritism arising, we wanted all athletes to feel included and that’s really hard to do if you’ve got a bit more of a personal relationship with some of them. We wanted the team to be managed effectively so yeah, we just I think with the particular team that we wanted her to coach they were stepping up to a level, they had a lot of potential so we wanted everything to be run quite smoothly and for her to have the respect of a coach and yeah, just a big thing was favouritism we just wanted to have everyone feel included.[94]
[94] T 142, 8-18.
RP said that in 2015 and 2016 there could be between 20 and 60 people in the gym area during training. She and JL would not always be present on the gym floor when training took place.[95] RP said that the athlete area was a place where athletes would put their bags and do homework if they needed to and was basically a waiting area before their class started. Coaches would sometimes go into the athlete area to collect their team or chat to the team. Because a lot of coaches were athletes, they would use that area.[96]
[95] T 144.
[96] T 144-145.
RP said she knew ER. She was an athlete and a coach and had joined AASCC around 12 years of age and started coaching when she was 16 years old. RP observed ER and the accused spending a lot of time together. They were in the same stunt group together and appeared to be good friends.[97]
[97] T 145.
RP saw ER and the accused looking unhappy with each other at least a few times. She recalled a particular occasion when she was in the staffroom, and they were just sitting there not saying anything but looking very upset or angry and it appeared tense between them.[98]
[98] T 146.
RP said that she received an email from ER’s mother advising that ER was no longer going to be an athlete or coach and it sounded like ER was having a hard time emotionally or mentally. RP could not recall when in 2016 ER left the club.[99]
Cross-examination
[99] T 147.
RP said that setting up the club involved a lot of hours and she and JL did not draw a salary for quite some time.[100] The club grew over time because it had more members and if they did well at competitions word got around and that helped membership numbers.[101]
[100] T 148.
[101] T 149.
RP agreed that doing well in competitions was part of the goal but they did not try to emphasise this in order avoid athletes losing confidence. RP said that achieving zero reductions from the score in a routine was a goal.[102] RP agreed that the flyers were the face of the team. She also agreed that during the course of working hard towards a competition, strong bonds form within the team and between the team and the coach.[103] RP said that cheerleading required a lot of dedication because if people were absent, it was hard to train fully.[104]
[102] T 149-150.
[103] T 150.
[104] T 151.
RP said that over the years she had seen friendships form between the athletes and it was generally a happy environment in the club. She saw girls hugging. When asked if she had seen an athlete holding one of the younger athletes on their hip she said, ‘yeah, I guess so’.[105] RP said that if she saw a coach doing that, she would probably discourage it as that was a little bit too personal.[106]
[105] T 152, 31.
[106] T 152.
RP agreed that cheerleading was very athletic and required high levels of fitness and strength.[107] RP said the club tried to encourage athletes to be sportsmanlike and not engage in rivalry that was mean and nasty.[108] RP said that they did not want any body image issues arising and cheerleading promoted all different body types. [109]
[107] T 153.
[108] T 154-155.
[109] T 155.
RP agreed that flyers were sometimes more petite than other athletes in the team. She also agreed that given the ages over which the female athletes would compete at the club, their bodies would change, including pubertal changes. However, she did not recall hearing the female athletes talking about the changes in their bodies, or their bodies compared to others. RP guessed that there were conversations about how costumes looked on the athletes.[110]
[110] T 156.
RP agreed that there were jokes and a bit of banter amongst people in the club. She was shown D5 and agreed that her and JL dressing up in a school uniform was done for a bit of fun and a bit of a laugh.[111]
[111] T 157.
RP said that she was sometimes a base and sometimes a flyer. She agreed that the accused was a good kid and was always respectful towards her. The accused loved cheerleading and she thought the accused loved being at the club. She was quite reliable in terms of her availability. RP said the accused looked younger than she was but did not necessarily think she was emotionally or socially immature.[112]
[112] T 158.
RP said that the accused seemed a little bit shy but interacted with everyone fairly positively. She sometimes had a bit of nervous energy. She was pretty talented and was a valuable member of the team. She agreed that the accused was a good coach and good assistant coach but said that there were still a couple of things that she could work on.[113] RP was asked if the accused contacted her in February 2018 for advice about how to set up a cheerleading gym and that RP had sent her a text message giving her some details about how to set up a gym. RP said that rang a bell and agreed she would have encouraged her in this endeavour. She also said it was quite possible she contacted the accused in August 2018 and wished her a happy birthday.[114]
[113] T 159.
[114] T 160.
RP agreed that ER and JL were present for the conversation with the accused about favouritism. She agreed that what she was conveying in that conversation was that it was more difficult to have the athletes respect the coaches and do what they said if they were their friends.[115]
[115] T 161.
RP did not recall being contacted by the accused in February 2016 telling RP she had put her down as a referee at an OSHC (out of hours school care). RP was shown a document and said she remembered the accused doing some OSHC work at some point and said it was possible she asked RP if she could be a referee.[116]She then accepted that she had agreed to be a referee for the accused. RP was then shown another document and agreed that she was contacted by the accused about a job she had obtained at an OSHC. Those documents which were a series of text messages between RP and the accused were tendered: D10.[117]
Re-examination
[116] T 161.
[117] T 162-163.

RP said there was only the one conversation she could recall with ER and the accused about coaching behaviour and expectations. She thought they had a bit more concern about the accused, but she could not recall the catalyst for the conversation.[118]
[118] T 164.
ER (count 1)
ER was born on 15 April 1999. She turned 18 in 2017. ER said she was an athlete and a coach at AASCC. She started in 2011 in a recreational team when she was 12 years old. She commenced competitive cheerleading in 2012.[119] This was her first involvement in cheerleading. She left the club in August 2016 when she was in year 12. She started coaching in 2014 when she was 14 to 15 years old. She was invited to be a coach by JL and RP. She had no experience in coaching cheerleading.[120]
[119] T 171.
[120] T 172.
ER’s role as an athlete was as a ‘base’. This involved holding the flyers in the air.[121]Now and then she was a ‘back spot’ which involved standing at the back of the group and holding the back of the flyer in the air to stabilise the flyer.[122]
[121] T 172.
[122] T 173.
ER attended training twice a week when she was in the junior team. As the years went on, it progressed to five to six days a week. This included additional training outside of team training. Training sessions were between one and a half to two hours when she was in the junior team. When she was training and coaching, she would attend the gym on a Sunday and usually after school up until 9pm.[123]
[123] T 173.
In 2016, she would coach a team in the morning from 9am until midday when her training began. She never coached a team she was in. The average class size was 16 to 20 athletes. The ages of the athletes varied; when she coached ‘Mini’s’ they were four-to five-year-olds; when she coached ‘Juniors’ they were under 12 or 13 and when she coached a teenage team they were between 12 and 18 years of age. The athletes were almost all female; she only coached one boy in a Mini team.[124]
[124] T 174.
ER coached the Mini’s team with JG and in 2015 and 2016 she coached the Glitter team with the accused. JL and RP occasionally worked alongside the accused and her when they were coaching Glitter. JL also helped ER coach the team, Shine, a junior team. When she started coaching there were requirements set in place by AASCF, but she could not recall how extensive they were. She learnt about how to teach certain skills correctly to athletes.[125] ER could not recall any form of induction or training from AASCC.[126]
[125] T 174-175.
[126] T 176.
ER was paid to coach and was a casual employee with a signed contract. The sport of cheerleading ran all year, following the school year, with the largest competition, the Nationals, held at the end of November.[127]
[127] T 176.
ER first met the accused in 2012 when she was 13 years old at a fundraising event that AASCC hosted. The accused was a flyer as a cheerleader.
ER described the accused as a ‘cheerlebrity’:
She was very well-known within the club, she was very charismatic, she was a known figure to many people in the gym. I know that there were younger girls on my team who knew who she was before she had come over and started interacting with us at the movie night. She was a very prominent figure within the gym, yes.[128]
[128] T 177, 32-38; T 178, 1.
In January 2013, she interacted with the accused more intimately when ER was with her friend SR who was also 13 years old. The accused and SR knew each other outside of cheerleading and SR arranged for the three of them to hang out. When ER first met the accused, she knew there was an age difference because the accused was in the older team. When they became friends, she learnt when her birthday was. Their friendship grew quite quickly, and they became close quite fast. They then commenced a sexual relationship.[129]
[129] T 176-178
When ER and the accused became close in 2013 they would talk every day via social media and speak to each other every night on the telephone. ER said she would wait until her parents fell asleep and then she and the accused would talk on the mobile telephone between 10 and 11pm. On some occasions the conversations would last into the early hours of the morning. They would make arrangements on Facebook Messenger about the time they were going to call each other. ER’s mother worked out what was happening and imposed a rule requiring ER to put her phone on charge in her mother’s bedroom when she was going to bed. ER then put her old mobile phone on charge in her mother’s bedroom and waited for her to fall asleep and would then call the accused on her other phone. Her mother discovered she was doing this and then ER and the accused arranged a time for one of them to call the other on the landline and the person receiving the call would sit there waiting and answer it as soon as the first ring occurred.[130]
[130] T 179-180.
ER and the accused were living in their respective family homes. ER attended the accused’s house throughout 2013. The accused had her own bedroom which was the first room on the right from the entrance to the house: P11. When ER was at the accused’s house, she spent most of the time with her in the bedroom.[131] ER said that the accused encouraged her to skip school and she would sign herself out and catch the bus to the accused’s house and hang out during the day.[132]
[131] T 182.
[132] T 183.
ER drew a plan of her own bedroom at her parents’ home: P12. ER identified a photograph that the accused took of her in the accused’s bedroom after the 2013 State Championship competition: P13.
ER spent the night at the accused’s house no more than a handful of times. She could not recall the first time she slept there but said the accused had a roll out trundle mattress under her single bed which she pulled out.[133] However, ER said she did not recall sleeping on the trundle mattress and thought she slept in the bed with the accused. The accused would regularly sleep at ER’s house as they got older, particularly in the last two years of their relationship.[134]
[133] T 184.
[134] T 185.
ER and the accused co-coached the Glitter team in 2015 and from the start of 2016 until ER quit the club at the end of August 2016.[135]
[135] T 185.
ER said that her relationship with the accused became sexual in the middle of 2013 when ER was in year 9. During that year, there was a day she skipped school to go to the accused’s house and that was when she had her first sexual experience with the accused. She was 14 years old and the accused was either 15 or 16 years old. ER described what happened on this occasion:
… I remember lying on [the accused’s] bed together and we were cuddling as we did at that time and I remember the defendant propping herself up on her elbows and laying on top of me while I was on my back, and she said to me, ‘Do you know what feels really weird’ and I said ‘What’, and she said ‘The feeling of your teeth against someone else’s’ and I remember thinking ‘What’, and I can’t remember if she said ‘Go like this’ but she either said that or made that face.
HER HONOUR: Witness indicates lips pulled back exposing teeth.
AAnd I copied that face and she proceeded to bite the top row of my teeth with her teeth, and she pulled back and then she did it again and from there we began kissing, and we kissed for a while eventually she moved her hand on top of my bike shorts on my vagina and began to touch me and I believe I did the same to her. Eventually it progressed to her moving her hand under my bike shorts but over my knickers and continuing to touch and then her progressing to putting her hand inside of my knickers and touching my vagina with nothing in between. I believe I did the same to her and she ended up inserting her fingers inside me and fingering me, and I believe I did the same to her.[136]
[136] T 186, 20-38, T 187, 1-5.
ER said this type of incident became a regular occurrence and occurred most of the times that they spent one on one time together. On most of the occasions when she went to the accused’s house her parents were at work. Occasionally a brother would be home.[137]
[137] T 187.
Prior to any sexual activity occurring, ER described her relationship with the accused as a very intense friendship. She said they were very close and they would refer to each other sisters, with the accused being the big sister and ER the little sister.[138]
[138] T 188.
ER said that the accused fingered her on the couch at the Greenacres gym in 2013. ER was lying with the accused under a zebra print blanket pulled up over their heads on an L-shaped grey couch that was pushed into the corner of the athlete area.[139] A class was running at the time this incident occurred but there was no one in the athlete area.[140]
[139] T 188.
[140] T 189.
After the sexual activity commenced, ER described her relationship with the accused as ‘best friends that had sex’. ER said everyone knew they were best friends, but no one knew that their relationship was a sexual one. In 2015 and 2016, the accused would often say, ‘we’re lesbian for each other’. She would talk about wanting to get married but would then tell ER that no one could know that they were together.[141]
[141] T 189.
ER described other sexual acts during the course of her relationship with the accused. She said that one night in 2015 after cheerleading training on a Saturday, she and the accused had returned to ER’s house. ER was doing the accused’s homework and the accused had fallen asleep next to her on the bed.[142] ER was working on a school business major report into a brand called Metalicus. ER closed her laptop and turned off the light. The accused woke up and cuddled into her and began to kiss her down the side of her jawline and neck. ER described what happened next:
And, as this was happening she moved her hand onto my knickers – I was wearing knickers and a big oversized T-shirt nightie at the time – under the quilt, and she put her hand on top of my knickers and started to touch my vagina with her fingers in a circular motion, and I remember saying, ‘No, I’m too tired’, but the defendant just kept kissing my neck and touching my vagina, and then, eventually, she moved my knickers to the side with her hand and began to finger me with her middle finger and her ring finger – two fingers. And then, eventually, after a little while of this, we both removed my knickers and I’ve bent my legs up and she moved down the bed to give me head.[143]
[142] T 190.
[143] T 191, 17-29.
ER said this occurred on other occasions and she would also perform oral sex on the accused.[144]
[144] T 192.
ER described how it was that she came to do the accused’s homework. She said the accused would often say she was stressed about school and that she was dumb. ER said those comments made her feel as though she needed to help her, ‘almost manipulating me into offering to help her to do homework’. Although the accused never explicitly asked ER to do her homework, she did ask if she could help her with it. However, ER said that she would do the accused’s homework while the accused sat next to her. ER was in year 10 when she was doing the accused’s research project. ER also helped the accused with her university assignments in her first year of her teaching degree.[145]
[145] T 193.
ER would do the accused’s homework either at cheerleading in the staff room or at her home on a sleepover. The accused would bring her laptop and sometimes ER would do the work directly on her laptop and other times the accused would email her the work and she would send it back.[146]
[146] T 193-194.
ER was shown an email sent by the accused to her on 26 August 2015: P14. The email attached a final draft of the Metalicus report.[147] ER said that the occasion of oral sex that she had described occurred between the two dates in P14. In 2015 ER was in year 11 and the accused was in year 12.[148]
[147] T 195.
[148] T 195.
ER identified four photographs of herself and the accused: P15. The photographs showed ER kissing the accused on the cheek; the two of them smiling at the camera; the two of them pulling faces for the camera and ER smiling and the accused with her mouth open.[149] ER had taken these photographs on her mobile telephone and had downloaded them onto a hard drive.[150]
[149] T 196-197.
[150] T 197.
ER said that she and the accused communicated via Snapchat, and this started in 2013. The accused sent photographs to ER on Snapchat. They were ‘selfies’ but also on more than one occasion the accused sent pictures of herself topless but with her nipples covered. The latter photographs were sent before 2015. [151]
[151] T 198-199.
In 2015, ER’s mother would pick her up from school and drive her in to the Nailsworth gym. When she obtained her P-plates in 2016 when she was year 12, she drove herself to the gym. When the accused was not training or coaching, she would attend the gym on Mondays to see ER when she was coaching a team.[152]
[152] T 200.
ER picked the accused up from her home on one occasion and drove her to the gym. The accused did not have a driver’s licence. ER said that the accused did not like the fact that ER had a driver’s licence and told ER it meant that she was growing up.[153]
[153] T 202.
In 2015, ER and the accused coached the Glitter team. Training started in January or February. This was the first time she had coached a team with the accused. In 2015, her relationship with the accused became quite toxic and abusive. The accused was emotionally, physically and mentally abusive. The accused manipulated ER, put her down a lot and controlled where she could go, what she could do and who she could see. When asked to give examples of the accused putting her down, she said:
She would structure those comments as ‘Why do you? Why would you?’, that they would be – what’s the word – intended to put me down and belittle me, things like ‘You think you’re so smart. You think you’re so good at this’. I just remember being told off essentially by her quite often for things I didn’t understand why I was being told off for.[154]
[154] T 203, 26-32.
This behaviour occurred at the gym, at home, on competitions and on social media. ER said the accused was very good at hiding her behaviour from others if they were in a group setting.[155]
[155] T 204.
ER said she could not remember the first occasion of physical abuse, but it was very prominent in her mind in 2015 and 2016. She described the accused’s behaviour:
She would hit with closed fist, she would punch, she would kick, she would pull hair, she would do whatever it was to hurt. I can picture her in my head after hurting me. There were times where she would turn to hurt herself. I can really picture her banging her head with her closed fists and almost seething at the mouth and pulling her hair and hurting herself after injuring me and often I would turn to calm her down to resolve the conflict.[156]
[156] T 204, 28-36.
ER said this sort of physical abuse took place every week. It occurred in the gym, in the toilets in the gym, in her bedroom and in a hotel room in Sydney. She felt the control throughout the two years, even when they were apart physically, as it occurred via text or social media.[157]
[157] T 204-205.
ER said that she was about 10 kilograms heavier in 2015 and 2016 than she was when she gave evidence, but the accused looked the same.[158]
[158] T 205.
ER said she and the accused and other cheerleaders travelled to Sydney to attend a two-day cheerleading competition in July or August 2016. ER said the accused was unhappy that she was not sitting next to ER in the taxi to the hotel and for the entirety of the journey, the accused, who was sitting behind her, pinched her on the back of the arms, and pulled her hair. When they got out of the taxi and during check-in the accused did not speak to her. After they went into the hotel room, the accused:
… lost her shit at me and started screaming at me about how dare I not sit next to her in the taxi, how could I do this to her and as she was yelling she was hitting me and punching me with her two hands and I eventually walked past her and as I was walking off she shoved me with her two hands and there was a metal coffee table between the sofa and the couch, like a big strip of metal that had just been bent, so it had quite sharp corners and as I fell, I fell into the corner of the coffee table and my left thigh struck the corner incredibly hard. It was horrible pain and I just fell to the floor and yelled in pain and I think even [LE] was shocked that I was in so much pain because she went silent and sort of stood there and then walked into the bedroom and shut the door, slammed it behind her while I laid on the floor and eventually I hopped up onto the couch and was just wailing in pain.[159]
[159] T 206, 36-38; T 207, 1-14.
ER took photographs of the bruise on her thigh: P16 and P17. She said she was still able to perform in the competition, but the accused asked her to cover the bruise with foundation. She did not do so.[160]
[160] T 209.
ER named the other girls who came on the Sydney trip and said the coaches, JL, JF and RP were also there. ER and the accused arranged their accommodation together and it was a ‘given’ that they would go together and stay together. ER said it was a common for athletes to share accommodation or rooms.[161]
[161] T 210.
ER said that she had sex with the accused on this trip, but she could not recall the details. The two of them had sex when they went on a staff retreat to Milang at the start of 2016.[162] The other people who attended the staff retreat were JF, RP, EW, RO, SMR and a girl called B. All of the people who attended were coaches. When they arrived at the beach house rental, everyone looked around the house and worked out who they wanted to share rooms with. ER and the accused picked a room that had two double beds in it.[163]
[162] T 211.
[163] T 212.
ER said that they pushed the double beds together so they would make one big bed so they could share a bed. ER described what happened on one of the nights they were in bed together:
I was on the left side, and she was on the right side, facing each other and kissing for a while. And then, after a little while of kissing, I pulled back and I said, ‘We shouldn’t do this here’ referring to anything progressing sexually. I don’t remember what [LE] said to me or if she said anything, but we then began to kiss again, kissed for a little while and then I pulled back a second time and I don’t remember what I said but it was a more stern indicator that I didn’t feel like having sex, and she retracted her head and pulled back and stared at me like she was offended, and rolled over in a huff onto her right side so she was facing away from me, and we sat in silence for a little bit, and that was followed with comments, say, ‘Why don’t you want to have sex with me anymore. You never want to have sex with me anymore. You don’t love me anymore. You hate having sex with me. You hate me’. And after a little while of waiting, I said, ‘Fine, come on then’ and she rolled over with a look on her face like she’d won, like a cheeky smirk, and then we resumed kissing for a while. After a while of kissing, I remember [LE] touching me on the vagina over the top of my knickers, and then, eventually, sliding her hand down the top of my knickers to touch my vagina and then fingering me. After a while of that, she ended up on top of me. Oral sex eventually happened again. There was a while of that, and then, after she came up from doing that, there was some more kissing. I reciprocated, I gave her head, and then, eventually it came to a halt, we went to bed.[164]
[164] T 213, 9-38.
ER said that one evening when they were all watching a movie during the staff retreat, the accused stood up and walked to the doorway of the bedroom and gave ER a ‘come here’ look. ER said:
… I tried to put it off for a little bit, but it was inevitable, and so I had to – I then got up and I went to the bedroom where she closed the door behind and I walked in, and then she started to hit me with closed fists over and over, on my arms and my shoulders and my head. And then that went on for some time, and eventually, she turned to hitting herself with closed fists to her forehead and then pulling her hair, going (INDICATES) because she was angry.[165]
[165] T 214, 32-38; T 215, 1-2.

The messages in P22 and P38 provide contemporaneous examples of her immaturity, anxiety and at times, neuroses. P22 is replete with these examples, including the accused’s anxiety about what others thought of her, ‘I am the worst flyer and the heaviest flyer too, I can’t do this anymore, I want to die and my best friend doesn’t want to help anymore’, ‘I’m worried, I’m dumb’, ‘I don’t know what to do, I’m so worried about everything’, don’t hate me’, ‘don’t be angry please’, ‘you hate me, you never even message me’. It is ER who often tries to reassure her, ‘[LE] no one hates you’, ‘:) and I don’t hate you’, ‘stop stressing out it’s okay’, ‘don’t be worried’. The accused’s anxieties saw her overreacting if she thought she was being ignored or lashing out at ER, ‘I’m not worth your time.’ She clearly had an irrational concern about her friends driving in the rain, ‘huge storm is coming, how the hell will you be fine to drive’, ‘THAT RAIN HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU DRIVING THIS IS CRAZY’.
I do not interpret these messages as controlling, rather they have a quality of desperation and lack of control at times.
I infer and find from the contents of P22 that there were conversations or messages between ER and the accused during the course of the messages in P22, which are not in evidence. Notwithstanding the observations I have made regarding the messages which are self-evidently genuine expressions of the accused’s anxieties and insecurities, I have exercised caution in determining what inferences can be drawn from the conversations in P22, given the full context of the communications between ER and the accused is not known. The exercise of taking the accused through P22 in examination and cross-examination was somewhat futile because she had no independent recollection of the context or circumstances of the messages and P22 did not refresh her memory. I accept that she genuinely had no memory of the messages in P22. This is not surprising given the period over which she communicated with ER, the frequency of that communication and the variety of forums in which it occurred.
The passage of time has affected the accused’s recollection of the messages in P22 and has left her unable to effectively refute ER’s evidence on that topic and the inferences put to her in cross-examination that it was said should be drawn from those messages. However, I accept her evidence that the expressions ‘love you’ and ‘miss you’ were not written because she was in a (sexual) relationship with ER. Such expressions were commonplace amongst the girls at the club who were simply friends. It appeared to be a common mode of expression that was not a literal expression of romantic love or longing. What is noteworthy for its complete absence is any reference in P22 (veiled or otherwise) to what, on ER’s account, had been a long-standing sexual relationship punctuated by violence and abuse.
I also accept the accused’s evidence that she was not trying to exercise control over ER or dictating her movements or demanding that she behave a particular way. There are examples of ER being assertive and treating the accused with contempt or derision in these messages. The suggestion that the accused was somehow controlling ER by making her do her homework does not sit comfortably with the fact that it was the accused who was academically inferior to ER and who depended upon ER’s help to improve her grades. Nor does it sit comfortably with the often-desperate pleas for help by the accused to ER.
As a matter of common sense and life experience, friendships between teenage girls can become obsessive and beset by petty jealousies and hormonal influences. Whilst some friendships formed in teenage years may last a lifetime, others that develop quickly and intensely can fade and disappear. Friendships may be situational and centre on a common interest and when that no longer exists, the foundation of the friendship falters. It is evident that the friendship between ER and the accused at the time of P22 was fractious, but it is entirely consistent with the ebb and flow of a female teenage friendship and petty jealousies and outbursts of anger or frustration. It must not be forgotten that the ease with which the keyboard can be used to vent anger or frustration before mature reflection might counsel otherwise is the lens through which these messages should be viewed. This trial was replete with social media posts and group chats which demonstrate the ease with which boundaries that might otherwise exist to moderate behaviour, disappear. They demonstrate how easy it was to strike a pose for the camera, to do something outrageous or silly or funny for the moment without a thought for any wider audience or future use.
Although there was no objection to the tender of P38 and no expert evidence regarding the Instagram messaging platform there are obvious irregularities in the appearance and content of that exhibit which are unexplained on the evidence and leave me with a sense of disquiet. The accused was cross-examined about the content of the messages she sent in P38 but that was on the assumption that she sent those messages and DG did not respond. Accordingly, I have exercised caution in determining what inferences can be drawn from the messages themselves. However, these messages have a similar neurotic and desperate quality as many of the messages in P22 and are signpost of the accused’s lack of self-esteem and self-confidence and her neuroses regarding her friendships.
Exposing of Naked Body
The only photograph tendered in this trial of the accused exposing her breasts was P144. I accept the accused’s evidence that as she jumped into the pool she pulled down her bather top but did not intend or expect to be captured on film at that precise moment and that she did not otherwise expose her naked breasts to her friends. She wore clothes in the bath when DG was present and filming her and all other photographs show her covering her nipples when being photographed.
The behaviour of the accused on the occasion that prosecution alleges the accused exposed the back of her naked body deliberately was, even on DG’s account inconsistent with an intentional exposure. Had it been the accused’s intention to expose her body to DG, rather than accidentally dropping her towel and picking it up again, her subsequent actions in being careful to ensure that she when she put on her underwear and other clothing she did not expose her naked body contraindicate any such intention. I accept her evidence that any dropping of her towel would have been an accident. It is easy to understand how this could happen when trying to get dressed with a towel draped over one’s shoulders.
Conclusions and Final Findings
I make the following positive findings of fact based upon the accused’s evidence, taking into account my evaluation of all of the evidence and the findings I have made regarding the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses:
·The accused was an athlete at AASCC from 2011-2013. She started coaching in 2013. The first team she was in was Teen Elite. In 2012 she was in Senior Elite. In 2013 and 2014 she was in Elite. In 2015 and 2016 she was in Infinity. In 2017 she was in Aurora. She coached Youth Elite in 2013, Junior Elite, Glitter, Radiance and Starburst in 2014 and 2015. In 2016 she coached Starburst and Glitter and two flyers classes. The accused did not coach in 2017.
·The coaches who used the athlete’s area were the accused, RO, ER, JG and ES. There was no rule in place that coaches were not allowed to be in the athlete’s area.
·During her time at the club, the youngest age of a coach was SMR who started coaching when she was 13.
·The induction given to athletes who became coaches was short and focussed on teaching cheerleading skills, safety and spotting and how to interact with parents.
·Staff meetings were held for an hour at the end of each team and involved the coaches giving an overview of the team and the performance of the athletes.
·There were no rules about the use of mobile phones in the gym other than they could not be used by athletes during training.
·There were no rules about the use of social media other than to ensure that posts presented an image of the club showing prowess in cheerleading.
·ER skipped school and came to the accused’s house when she was in year 10 and 11 two or three times. The accused did not ask her to skip school.
·The accused struggled academically at school and ER helped her with some of her homework and also university work.
·The accused had an anxiety about driving and about others driving vehicles.
·Athletes at the club would often talk about their bodies and body shape. The size of an athlete’s breasts was a topic of conversation because it impacted upon how a base would hold their hands whilst holding the feet of a flyer. Banter and jokes about body parts and body shape was commonplace. The accused would, from time to time, comment on the appearance of other athletes including if they had large or small breasts but never said any athlete would look good naked.
·Athletes would discuss sexual topics at the gym, including whether they had kissed boys or sexual activities with boys. Some coaches (including CM, ES, ER and RO) and athletes (other than JL and JF) would engage in these discussions in the athlete’s area. The accused had no sexual experience with boys other than having kissed one boy when she was 15 years old and another boy when she was 19 or 20 years old.
·The accused was insecure about her academic abilities and her lack of physical maturity, in particular the size of her breasts. She compensated for that by making jokes about her breast size and, on occasion, put her hands on her breasts, partially exposed her breasts or sent pictures of her partially covered breasts to her friends including photographs of her appearing to be trying to lick them. When she did this, there was no sexual motivation. ES had sent similar photographs to her. Other athletes at the club would put their hands on their breasts over clothing when photographs were taken. She never completely exposed her breasts at training.
·The accused often joked she was the oldest and had the smallest breasts.
·Athletes of all ages at the club regularly hugged each other and not just when a photograph was taken. Athletes would on occasion lie next to each other in the athlete’s area while waiting for training to commence.
·The accused did not stick her fingers in the cake shown in P21 intending it to be a sexual gesture.
·There were occasions when the accused touched the breasts of other athletes, over their clothing. These occasions occurred when she was both a child and an adult and the other athletes were both children and adults. When that occurred it was done as a joke or something silly, and the athletes to whom she did this did not object but laughed about it. She grabbed ES’ breast in P92 as a joke for the photograph and ES thought it was funny and over the years they would send the photograph to each other and laugh about it. RO, ES and ER touched her breasts in the same way on other occasions. This behaviour was not unique to the accused and other athletes would behave this way from time to time at the club.
·There were occasions when the accused touched the buttocks of other athletes, over their clothing. These occasions occurred when she was both a child and an adult and the other athletes were both children and adults. When that occurred it was done as a joke or something silly, and the athletes to whom she did this did not object but laughed about it. This behaviour was not unique to the accused and other athletes would behave this way from time to time at the club.
·RO would often film or photograph the accused doing something silly. On the occasion of P147 she did not want to do anything silly so pulled up her crop top to stop RO filming. She did not do this with any sexual intention or motivation.
·The accused pulled her top down in P144 because RO told her she wanted her to do something silly. She did not expose her breasts for any prurient purpose and felt uncomfortable when she discovered RO had captured her exposed breasts on camera. She asked RO to delete it.
·The accused was not acting with any sexual intention or motivation when behaving in the manner depicted in P87. ES did the same thing on this occasion. The people present were laughing when she did this.
As to count 1
·ER and the accused were on the same team between 2013-2016. They were good friends during this period. ER helped the accused with her homework or university work. She never pressured or forced ER to do this, ER was happy to help her.
·In 2013 the accused and ER had four sexual experiences together as described by the accused. There may have been two other occasions similar to the third and fourth occasion. The accused was 15 and 16 years old.
·There was no further sexual contact between ER and her after this. As adult, the accused did not kiss ER on the lips or insert a finger into her vagina. At no time did the accused cause ER to touch her vagina, perform an act of cunnilingus on her or cause ER to perform an act of cunnilingus on her.
·The accused admitted that there were occasions when she touched the breasts or buttocks of other athletes over their clothing, including ER. On her admission, I am satisfied that there were occasions when she touched ER’s breasts and buttocks over her clothing at the gym in the presence of other athletes in the manner she described. She did this when she was a child and also when she had turned 18. When this occurred she and ER were very close friends and she thought of ER as a sister. On each occasion when this occurred, it was done as a joke or in a light-hearted manner.
·Touching of the breast or buttock of a female child on the outside of clothing by another child or an adult does not unequivocally offer a sexual connotation. It may or may not be an indecent act. Right minded persons do not make a decision about whether an act is contrary to the contemporary standards of decency by an artificial exercise of abstracting an action performed from the context in which it is performed. I have considered the evidence of the accused regarding her intention or purpose in touching the breasts or buttocks of other athletes over their clothing. I have accepted her evidence that such touching was never sexually motivated. The conduct itself involved the touching of ER’s breasts or buttocks over clothing, in full view of others and was something that was done to the accused by other athletes who were friends and was behaviour that was not unique to the accused. On the findings I have made this was accepted behaviour between close female friends and fellow athletes of varying ages and part of skylarking or humorous interaction that was commonplace at the club. In those circumstances, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
·The accused was never violent towards ER.
·ER sustained the bruise in Sydney as an accident following a wrestle between her and the accused over a Qantas top, during which she fell into a coffee table.
·In 2016 the accused and ER were arguing and fighting a lot. Their friendship was falling apart. Co-coaching had put a strain on their relationship.
·The last time the accused saw ER was on 25 August 2016. On 25 August 2016 they argued about fake eye-lashes in a telephone call. Their friendship ended that day.
As to count 2 and 4
·The accused did not touch SMR or DG’s breasts on the occasion depicted in P19 in the bathroom at ER’s house or at any time at ER’s house. She did not engage in a conversation on that occasion about being horny.
·When the accused lifted her underwear in P41 that was so she could look at her tan line in the mirror. She did not do this for any sexual purpose or motivation.
·Whenever she changed in her room after a shower and a friend, including DG was present, she never intentionally exposed her body. If there was an occasion when her towel dropped, that was accidental.
·The accused did not ‘dry-hump’ DG or hug her when DG was sleeping over and in the accused’s bed with her.
·The accused did not ever kiss DG on the lips. She did hug DG when saying hello or goodbye of if she was sitting next to her. There was no sexual purpose of motivation for any hugs.
·The accused did not slap DG on the vagina on any occasion.
·On one occasion SMR and DG slept over, they were doing each other’s makeup. The accused had a blush which was the Nars Brand, called ‘Orgasm’. SMR commented on ‘orgasm’ being an unusual name for a blush and the accused and DG agreed and they laughed about it. She did not tell SMR or DG what an orgasm was. She did not explain how to get one or what it was. She had never had an orgasm before. She did not grab a pillow and rub it against her vagina.
·The accused did not initiate any conversation with DG and/or SMR about pubic hair.
·The accused did not deliberately expose her breasts to SMR in the accused’s bedroom by jumping in the air.
·The accused did not ask SMR or DG to lie to her father about their age.
·On the occasion of P113, the accused did not tell SMR, IS or DG that she had been told she could not hang out with younger athletes. She did not ask anyone present not to take a photograph of her face.
·The accused did not touch DG’s breasts over her clothing on any of the occasions she slept over. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused touched DG on the breasts in the manner, context or with the frequency she described. DG described those occasions as often involving hugging, trying to kiss her on the lips, kissing, vagina slaps and at times conversations about pubic hair. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this breast touching occurred.
·The accused may have sent photographs to DG of herself with breasts partially exposed but with her nipples covered. If this occurred it was not for a prurient purpose or with the intention of making DG amenable to sexual activity. However, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that this conduct occurred or that it occurred when the accused was an adult.
·The accused did not try to put her hand under the waistline of DG’s pyjamas at any time.
As to count 3
·The accused coached SB in 2013 and 2014. She did not coach SB in 2015 and 2016.
·The accused may have grabbed SB’s breasts over her clothing as a joke but never in a sexual manner.
·It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused touched SB’s breasts on or after 22 August 2015.
·SB often spoke to the accused about sexual activities with her boyfriend. She would say similar things to the comment about her boyfriend in D88. ES and the accused would ask SB questions about sexual activities with her boyfriend when these discussions took place. ES did not ever tell the accused that she could not ask SB those questions.
·SB’s figure was a topic of conversation at the gym. RO would make comments about SB’s bottom, including that it was big and difficult for her to catch. When these comments were made the accused and SB would laugh. The accused probably slapped SB on the bottom in the way described by SB in evidence. This was something that others had done to her in the same way. When she slapped athletes on the bottom there was no sexual intention or motivation.
·Touching of the buttocks on the outside of clothing is an equivocal act. It may or may not be an indecent act, depending on the circumstances and the intention of the actor. I have considered the evidence of the accused regarding her intention or purpose in touching the buttocks of SB over her clothing. I have accepted her evidence that such touching was never sexually motivated. The conduct itself involved the type of touching that can occur in a sporting context and is often observed as form of congratulations to fellow team member for a good performance. In the setting described by SB, the touching was clearly part of a light-hearted banter and a method of encouraging her to move into the training area. On the findings I have made regarding the club environment, the relationships between the athletes and their interactions with each other, this ‘bottom-slapping’ was accepted behaviour between close female friends and fellow athletes and part of skylarking or humorous interaction that was commonplace at the club. In those circumstances, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
As to count 5
·The accused did not coach JG.
·The accused probably touched JG’s breasts in the manner she described and if so, this would have been as a joke. JG had done this to her multiple times and said the same sort of thing, ‘your boobs are looking bigger’. JG did not object to the accused doing this and was not concerned about it.
·It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that JG did not consent to the accused’s touching of her breasts because it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that any such occasion occurred when JG was a child and therefore could not consent.
·Even if the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that this touching occurred and it occurred when JG was 16 and just about to turn 17, the touching did not have a sexual connotation. Touching of the breast of a female child on the outside of clothing by an adult does not unequivocally offer a sexual connotation. It may or may not be an indecent act. Right minded persons do not make a decision about whether an act is contrary to the contemporary standards of decency by an artificial exercise of abstracting an action performed from the context in which it is performed. I have considered the evidence of the accused regarding her intention or purpose in touching the breasts of other athletes over their clothing. I have accepted her evidence that such touching was never sexually motivated. The conduct itself involved the briefest touching of the breast over clothing, and on the findings I have made was accepted behaviour between close female friends and fellow athletes of varying ages and part of skylarking or humorous interaction that was commonplace at the club. In those circumstances, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
·The accused did not ask JG if she had touched herself.
As to count 7
·There was an occasion the accused attended RFO club to film a Q & A YouTube video with ES, JB and LB. D106 is a photograph taken on this occasion. The accused did not ask anyone on that occasion if they masturbated. The topic was not raised at all.
·The accused had no sexual interest in JB or LB. The accused and JB would hug each other.
·The accused did not grab JB’s breasts and say ‘you’re getting older’.
As to the uncharged offending
MB
·The accused did not take a photograph or video of MB crouched down on the floor of the athlete’s area or curled up in a ball without any clothes on.
·The accused did not take a photograph of MB partially naked and did not ask MB to remove her crop top or shorts on any occasion.
·MB liked the padded pink crop top with black stars worn by CY. She told CY she liked it. The accused suggested CY let her try it on. When MB tried it on the accused probably told MB she would look good with big breasts when she tried on a padded crop top belonging to MB but did not use the word ‘tits’.
RO
·When the accused sent RO the photographs in P146 she did not do for a prurient purpose and nor did she intend to make RO amenable to sexual activity. She sent the photographs because she thought it was funny. When she sent photographs like this RO would respond with messages indicating that she thought they were funny. When the accused exposed her breasts in P145 and 147 she did not do so for a sexual purpose.
·Given my reservations regarding RO’s evidence, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused touched RO’s breasts on the sleepover with GT at McLaren Vale.
IZ
·IZ was slightly older than the accused. The occasion in 2014 at the gym during stunting training when the accused touched her breast was in the context of a discussion about athletes who had breasts and those who did not and where athletes with larger breasts would hold their hands when compared to those who had smaller breasts. It was in the context of this conversation that the accused touched IZ’s breasts with open palms. Other people were present, and it occurred within eyesight of other people at training. I find that the accused touched IZ’s breasts in the course of demonstrating how IZ’s breast size impacted where she held her hands. The context of the conversation and IZ’s description of the accused’s actions reveal that the touching of the breasts occurred in the course of demonstrating how IZ’s breast size impacted where she held her hands.
·I have considered the evidence of the accused regarding her intention or purpose generally when touching the breasts of other athletes over their clothing. I have accepted her evidence that such touching was never sexually motivated. In context, the touching of IZ’s breast, when they were discussing how breast size impacted on the sport of cheerleading and when that touching was for the purpose of demonstrating this, did not have a sexual connotation. I could not be satisfied that the touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
MT
·I have accepted the accused’s evidence that she did not ever say that another athlete would look good naked. She did not say this to MT.
EW
·The accused did not send EW Snapchat photographs of MB with no top on.
KM
·I am satisfied that the specific occasion described by KM occurred in 2014. I have considered the evidence of the accused regarding her intention or purpose generally when touching the breasts of other athletes over their clothing. I have accepted her evidence that such touching was never sexually motivated. In context, the touching of KM’s breast, when they on the gym mat waiting for instructions during a training session with a number of other athletes and in the presence of JL and RP, and in a joking manner when commenting on KM’s large breasts, did not have a sexual connotation. The conduct itself involved the briefest touching of the breast over clothing, and on the findings I have made was accepted behaviour between close female friends and fellow athletes of varying ages and part of skylarking or humorous interaction that was commonplace at the club. In those circumstances, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the touching occurred in circumstances of indecency.
ES
·The accused did not ask JG if she touched herself.
·The accused did not say that DG would look good naked.
·The accused did not touch JB or LB on the breasts.
·The accused did not touch DG’s breasts.
·Any touching of ES’s breasts by the accused was with ES’s consent.
·The accused did not ask JB and LB at RFO club whether they had touched themselves.
IS
·The accused did not touch SMR’s breasts at ER’s house.
·There was no discussion as described by IS about pubic hair and breast development at ER’s house.
Verdicts

I find the accused not guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
‘ANNEXURE A’
CALENDAR FROM 2011 - 2023
‘ANNEXURE B’
CHART PROVIDED BY DEFENCE COUNSEL TITLED CONTAMINATION / COLLUSION / CATCHUP
‘ANNEXURE C’
CHARGED COMPLAINANTS SUMMARY
‘ANNEXURE C’
DEFENCE CHART

Exhibit Number	Witness	Counsel	Description
P1	By consent	Prosecution	AGE CHART Ages of LE, ER, DG, SB, SMR, JG, LB and JB from 2011 to 2018.
P2	JL	Prosecution	SITE PLAN OF 2A JONES STREET, NAILSWORTH
P3	JL	Prosecution	PHOTO BOOKLET OF 2A JONES STREET GYM
D4	JL	Defence	BUNDLE OF FACEBOOK PAGE POSTS
D5	JL	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JL AND TWO OTHERS
D6	JL	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF JL WITH ANOTHER ATHLETE
D7	JL	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JL WITH THREE OTHER ATHLETES FROM THE CLUB
D8	JL	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF SA COACH ET WITH YOUNG ATHLETE
D9	JL	Defence	SERIES OF EMAILS FROM JL AND JF TO LE JANUARY 2017
D10	RP	Defence	SMS MESSAGED EXCHANGED BETWEEN RP AND LE IN 2016 AND 2017
P11	ER	Prosecution	FLOOR PLAN OF LE’s FAMILY HOME
P12	ER	Prosecution	DRAWING OF ER’s BEDROOM IN THE R FAMILY HOME
P13	ER	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF ER TAKEN AFTER 2013 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
P14	ER	Prosecution	EMAIL SENT BY LE TO ER
P15	ER	Prosecution	FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF ER AND LE
P16	ER	Prosecution	FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF ER LEG
P17	ER	Prosecution	SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF ER
P18	ER	Prosecution	DRAWING OF PART OF MILANG BEACH HOUSE
P19	ER	Prosecution	FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF POOL PARTY
P20	ER	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT GREENACRES GYM
P21	ER	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF CAKE INCIDENT
P22	ER	Prosecution	BUNDLE OF TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN ER AND LE BETWEEN 27/7/2016 AND 25/8/2016
P23	ER	Prosecution	VIDEO TAKEN ON CHEERLEADING TRIP
P24	ER	Prosecution	SECOND VIDEO TAKEN ON CHEERLEADING TRIP
D25	ER	Defence counsel	FACEBOOK GROUP CHAT
D26	ER	Defence counsel	PHOTOGRAPH FROM JG’S 21ST BIRTHDAY
D27	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE IN A HOTEL ROOM
D28	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE IN WHICH ER IS HOLDING LE
D29	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ER AND LE ON GOLD COAST 2015 TRIP
D30	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE AND ER 19 MARCH 2015
D31	ER	Defence	INSTAGRAM POST BY JG
D32	ER	Defence	GROUP CHAT BETWEEN LE, ER AND EW
D33	ER	Defence	PHOTO OF ER WITH OTHER CHEERLEADERS ON 19/2/2016
D34	ER	Defence	GROUP CHAT 26/7/2016
D35	ER	Defence	TWO PAGE GROUP CHAT DATED 24/9/2012
D36	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH FROM SYDNEY BATTLE COMPETITION 7/2016
D37	ER	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, ER AND OTHER CHEERLEADERS
P38	DG	Prosecution	MESSAGES BETWEEN DG AND LE JUNE 2015
P39	DG	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND LE
P40	DG	Prosecution	DIAGRAM OF LE BEDROOM DRAWN BY DG
P41	DG	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE WITH BOTTOM AND LEGS SHOWING
P42	DG	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR, LE AND DG IN LE’S BEDROOM
P43	DG	Prosecution	SEVEN SNAPCHAT PHOTOS
P44	DG	Prosecution	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY DG OF LE AND THEN LE AND DG
D45	DG	Defence	VIDEO OF DG AND LE WITH DEODORANT
D46	DG	Defence	VIDEO IN BACKYARD OF LE’s HOME
D47	DG	Defence	VIDEO TAKEN IN LE’s BEDROOM
D48	DG	Defence	VIDEO AT NAILSWORTH GYM OF DG AND LE
D49	DG	Defence	TWO VIDEOS OF A PHONE SHOWING A VIDEO OF LE IN THE BATH
D50	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND SMR, AND SECOND PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR AND IS
D51	DG	Defence	ONE PAGE CONTAINING PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND JL AND ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH OF JL, SB AND JG
D52	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN JANUARY 2020 OF DG, IS, JG AND SMR
D53	DG	Defence	PHOTO OF DG AND SMR POSTED JUNE 2020
D54	DG	Defence	THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DG AND OTHERS
D55	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH PREVIOUSLY POSTED BY JG
D56	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SUNNY'S PIZZA BAR
D57	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND SMR
D58	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SEAMORE'S OF DG AND JG
D59	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR, RO NOVEMBER 2020
D60	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF IS WITH 'BIRTHDAY DESSERT'
D61	DG	Defence	THREE PHOTOGRAPHS, TWO OF WHICH ARE MT AND SB, THIRD PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND JG DATED 5/02/2021
D62	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND DG ON 20/02/2021
D63	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY DG AT IS 18TH BIRTHDAY
D64	DG	Defence	POST BY RO
D65	DG	Defence	POST BY JG OF PHOTO OF RO
D66	DG	Defence	THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF SB AND MT 21ST BIRTHDAY PARTY
D67	DG	Defence	POST BY SB ON 2/01/2022
D68	DG	Defence	TWO POSTS, ONE BY SB AND ONE BY SMR.
D69	DG	Defence	THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF POSTS ABOUT TRIPS TO BLACK POINT
D70	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOS TAKEN AT SB’s BIRTHDAY
D71	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF DG
D72	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THAI RESTAURANT
D73	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND SMR
D74	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN NOOSA
D75	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG WITH SMR AT GRAPEVINE FESTIVAL
D76	DG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT DG 2023 BIRTHDAY
D77	DG	Defence	TWO PAGES OF SCREENSHOTS OF MESSENGER GROUP CHAT
D78	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF A POST BY DG WISHING LE HAPPY BIRTHDAY
D79	DG	Defence	POST BY DG DATED 22/8/2016
D80	DG	Defence	SNAPCHAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN DG AND LE ON 27/11/2016
D81	DG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ATHLETES INCLUDING DG POSING
D82	DG	Defence	POST 9/1/2015 BY AASCC
D83	DG	Defence	SNAPCHAT MESSAGE BETWEEN DG AND LE AUGUST 2017
D84	DG	Defence	HAPPY BIRTHDAY POST FROM DG TO LE
P85	SB	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE TAKEN BY SB
P86	SB	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF SB, ROE AND MT IN LE'S LIVING ROOM
P87	SB	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE FROM GOLD COAST TRIP
D88	SB	Defence	FACEBOOK CONVERSATION BETWEEN SB AND LE 30/11/2016
D89	SB	Defence	THREE PAGES OF IMAGES OF SB AND CHEER GIRLS
P90	ES	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH SENT TO ES BY LE VIA MESSENGER
P91	ES	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE TOPLESS
P92	ES	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE AND ER
P93	ES	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE IN OFFICE AT NAILSWORTH GYM
P94	ES	Prosecution	MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN LE AND ES
P95	ES	Prosecution	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE AND DG FROM MESSENGER CHAT SCREENSHOTS
P96	ES	Prosecution	MESSENGER CHAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN ES, LE, CM AND MS CB
D97	ES	Defence	MESSENGER GROUP CHAT DATED 26/1/2018 BETWEEN LE, ES AND CB
D98	ES	Defence	FACEBOOK CONTENT FROM ES'S PAGE 8/6/2018
D99	ES	Defence	SCREENSHOTS OF MESSENGER CHAT BETWEEN LE AND ES
D100	ES	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ES AND LE AND PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE, ER AND CB
D101	ES	Defence	POST OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF ES AND JB
D102	ES	Defence	POST ON SB FACEBOOK PAGE 25/1/2017
D103	ES	Defence	POST DATED 14/6/2015 PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, ER, TM AND LE
D104	ES	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE, ES AND LF
D105	ES	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT MILANG COACH RETREAT 2016
D106	ES	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF ES, LE AND THE B TWINS
D107	ES	Defence	FACEBOOK MESSAGE FROM ES TO LE DATED 22/8/2017
P108	IS	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY IS OF LE AT LE'S HOME
P109	IS	Prosecution	SNAPCHAT SCREENSHOT FROM IS'S SNAPCHAT ACCOUNT
P110	IS	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF DG AND LE AT IS'S HOUSE
D111	IS	Defence	SCREENSHOTS OF MESSAGES BETWEEN IS AND LE IN JUNE 2016
P112	SMR	Prosecution	FOUR PAGES OF SCREENSHOTS TAKEN BY SMR
P113	SMR	Prosecution	SCREENSHOT OF PHOTO TAKEN BY SMR
P114	SMR	Prosecution	MESSAGE SENT BY LE TO SMR
D115	SMR	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF SMR AND TH 2018
D116	SMR	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS 6/10/2016
D117	SMR	Defence	IMESSAGES 6 DECEMBER 2015
D118	SMR	Defence	PHOTOGRAPHS FROM POOL DAY
D119	SMR	Defence	FACEBOOK MESSAGES FROM LIFE ADVICE 101 GROUP 31/1/2018
D120	SMR	Defence	SNAPCHAT AND INSTAGRAM POSTS OF SMR
P121	CB	Prosecution	SEVEN PAGES OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER MESSAGES BETWEEN LE AND CB
P122	CB	Prosecution	FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN LE AND CB
D123	CB	Defence	FIVE NOTIFICATIONS SHOWING MESSAGES UNSENT BY CB
D124	JB	Defence	POST WITH PICTURE OF JB AND LB
D125	JB	Defence	POST WITH PHOTOGRAPH OF JB AND JzB
D126	JB	Defence	POST WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 10/5/2017
D127	JB	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF LB
D128	JB	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JB FEBRUARY 2015
D129	JB	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JB JANUARY 2015
D130	JB	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF STRETCHING
P131	JG	Prosecution	PHOTO BOOTH PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MIDYEAR PARTY
P132	JG	Prosecution	SCREENSHOT OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN LE AND JG
P133	JG	Prosecution	FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN ER AND JG
D134	JG	Defence	INSTAGRAM POST WITH PHOTOS OF JG AND DG
D135	JG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AT WHITE LIES PARTY
D136	JG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG AND RO AT NAILSWORTH GYM
D137	JG	Defence	SCREENSHOT OF GROUP CHAT CREATED BY JG
D138	JG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG HOLDING IK IN 2018
D139	JG	Defence	TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF JG AND IK
D140	JG	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF JG WITH JG AND CC
MFI D141	JG	Defence	STORY FROM DG’S ISTAGRAM ACCOUNT
P142	RO	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE, RO AND GT
P143	RO	Prosecution	SCREENSHOT OF FACEBOOK MESSENGER CONVERSATION BETWEEN RO AND LE
P144	RO	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE AT RO'S MOTHER'S HOUSE
P145	RO	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF LE IN RO'S ROOM
P146	RO	Prosecution	FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE SENT TO RO BY LE
P147	RO	Prosecution	VIDEO OF LE AT ATHLETE AREA IN NAILSWORTH GYM
P148	RO	Prosecution	PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND LE IN LE'S ROOM IN 2014
D149	RO	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF TH AND SMR AT RO'S FATHER'S HOUSE IN MALVERN
D150	RO	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF RO AND LE
D151	RO	Defence	PHOTO OF RO, HER SISTER AND FATHER POSTED BY JG
D152	RO	Defence	PHOTO OF RO AND LE
D153	RO	Defence	PHOTOGRAPHS OF LE AND RO
D154	RO	Defence	POST BY RO DATED AUGUST 2017
D155	IZ	Defence	BIRTHDAY POST BY IZ TO LE
D156	IZ	Defence	FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN IZ AND LE 2015
D157	IZ	Defence	PHOTO TAKEN AT IZ’s PARENTS’ HOUSE OF LE, TS AND IZ
D158	IZ	Defence	PHOTOGRAPH OF IZ AND LE AT IZ’S 18TH BIRTHDAY PARTY
P159	Prosecution	STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS