R v F, J C - [2025] SADC 107

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v F, J C
[2025] SADC 107
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Fuller
20 August 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD - COMMUNICATING TO MAKE A CHILD AMENABLE TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY
Accused charged with two offences - sexual abuse of a child and making a communication with the intention of making a child amenable to sexual activity – accused was a music teacher at a private college in 2016 – the alleged victims were female students at that college – accused alleged to have dared each complainant (SS and JB aged 17 and 16 respectively) to kiss each other during a truth or dare game in a motel room they were staying at for a school music festival in May 2016 – the accused then invited JB to her motel room where sexual activity took place – the sexual activity continued the following evening in the accused’s motel room – JB made an initial complaint on the telephone to her then girlfriend CK the next day – in the following months leading up to JB’s 17th birthday in September 2016 the sexual activity continued including in the accused’s car, her home, JB’s home and in the music building at the college – the accused was tutoring JB privately during this period – accused ceased teaching at the college by 24 June 2016 but continued tutoring JB - photographs of the accused and JB together at the motel and other places, and kissing on JB’s 17th birthday and emails from the accused to JB in July 2016 professing her love for JB were tendered – copies of explicit sexual messages which JB said were sent or written by the accused also tendered – JB said accused gave her gifts and collages.
Accused gave evidence in her defence denying all sexual activity and asserting that the photograph of her kissing JB occurred when she was posing for a pretend kiss with JB and JB unexpectedly kissed her – accused admitted sending emails but said she was concerned about JB’s mental health and was trying to extricate herself from her relationship with JB which was marked by erratic behaviour and increasing emotional dependency on the accused – shortly after her 17th birthday the accused blocked JB on Facebook and refused to take her calls and exited her life permanently. JB continued to stalk the accused and attended a performance of hers in 2017 after calling her on a blocked number.
Held: Prior inconsistent statements on material matters proved with respect to evidence of JB and SS – finding of contamination of account as a result of subsequent discussions between JB and SS regarding events in motel room – prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused sent sexually explicit text message or gave JB gifts – accused’s denials on oath on material matters credible and convincing – accused’s evidence regarding emails rejected in part but content of emails did not establish sexual relationship beyond reasonable doubt and did not remedy deficiencies in prosecution case – finding that accused’s relationship with JB was unprofessional and inappropriate but not sexual.
Verdicts: Not guilty of counts 1 and 2.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49 (3), s 50, s 50 (1), s 50 (12), s 56, s 57, s 62, s 63B (3)(B), s 63B (7), Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.
SAN v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 35 [37]; R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 503 [3]-[6]; 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 M, AS (2013) 118 SASR 160, considered.

R v F, J C
[2025] SADC 107
Criminal
The charges

The accused was charged on Information with the following offences:
Count 1
Offence Details:
Sexual Abuse of a Child – Position of Authority. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
[The accused] between the 5^th day of May 2016 and the 10^th day of September 2017 at Mount Gambier, Kensington, Paradise and other places, being in a position of authority in relation to [JB], a person under the age of 18 years, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [JB] by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards [JB], namely:
a)   Kissing [JB] on more than one occasion;
b)   Touching [JB] on the breasts on more than one occasion;
c)   Causing [JB] to touch the breasts of [the accused] on more than one occasion;
d)   Causing [JB] to touch the vagina of [the accused] on more than one occasion;
e)   Touching the vagina of [JB] on more than one occasion;
f)   Causing [JB] to insert a finger into the vagina of [the accused] on more than one occasion;
g)   Inserting a finger into [JB]’s vagina on more than one occasion;
h)   Performing an act of cunnilingus on [JB] on one occasion;
i)    Causing [JB] to perform an act of cunnilingus upon [the accused] on more than one occasion; and
j)    Communicating with [JB] for a prurient purpose with the intent (sic) of making [JB] amenable to sexual activity on more than one occasion.
Count 2:
Offence Details:
Communicating with the Intention of Making a Child Amenable to Sexual Activity. (Section 63B(3)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
[The accused] on the 6^th day of May 2016 at Mount Gambier, being in a position of authority in relation to [SS], a person under the age of 18 years, made a communication for a prurient purpose with the intention of making [SS] amenable to sexual activity.
The plea
The accused pleaded not guilty and elected for trial by Judge alone. I heard the trial without a jury. I now publish my reasons for the verdicts I am about to deliver.
Overview of the prosecution case as opened on
The prosecution case was that the accused took advantage of her role as a music teacher at [M] College to ingratiate herself with students. This led her to forming a sexual relationship with one of her students. The unlawful sexual relationship started in May 2016 at a jazz festival for school students in Mount Gambier. The accused was entrusted with the responsibility of chaperoning the students from the school where she taught. She took advantage of the opportunity of being away with some of those students. On the first night of the festival, she enthusiastically encouraged two female students to kiss each other and to perform sexual acts with each other.
Later that same evening, the accused returned to her room with one of those two students and the two of them engaged in sexual activity. At the time of this alleged offending the accused was thirty-one years old, and the student, JB, was sixteen years old.
The relationship between the accused and JB continued until JB ended the relationship around October or November 2016, after JB had turned seventeen. The accused was in a position of authority over JB whilst she was teaching her and accordingly, during that period, JB, being under 18 years of age, was a child for the purposes of s 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) (CLCA).
The relationship between the accused and JB was initially one of student and teacher, but when the accused was no longer teaching JB, the relationship became one of girlfriend and girlfriend.
In relation to count 2, the communication relied upon was made at the same time as the communication alleged in particular (j) of count 1. The complainant with respect to count 2 was SS.
JB was a student at the college from 2013 until the end of 2017 and SS was a student there from 2013 until the end of 2016. Prior to May 2016, JB had told the accused that she was gay. JB, SS and a group of students representing [M] College together with the accused and another teacher, GH, travelled in a bus to Mount Gambier for the Generations in Jazz Festival. They all stayed in a motel in Mount Gambier and JB and SS shared a room together. At the time, the accused was JB’s music teacher but did not teach SS any subjects.
On the first night, the accused came into the room JB and SS were sharing and during the course of a truth or dare game, performed a lap dance on a chair. The accused asked both girls whether they would date each other and then dared them to kiss each other. The communication for the purposes of count two and particular (j) of count one is, respectively, the dare to SS to kiss JB and the dare to JB to kiss SS.
After the truth or dare game, SS became tired and went to sleep. The accused and JB went back to the accused’s room and started kissing and then the accused touched JB on her genital area and then caused JB to digitally penetrate the accused. On the second night of the festival, the accused and JB were again alone in the accused’s motel room, and they kissed, the accused touched JB’s genital area and caused JB to digitally penetrate her.
Following the festival, the accused continued a sexual relationship with JB. She arranged for JB to attend her home under the guise of private tutoring. On almost all of these occasions, they would engage in some sort of sexual activity, ranging from digital penetration and cunnilingus as particularised. There were at least two occasions when the accused engaged in sexual activity in the school music room and there were occasions of sexual activity in the accused’s car. There were some occasions when the accused went to JB’s family home and, when alone in JB’s bedroom, they engaged in sexual activity.
The accused and JB communicated via text message and the accused asked JB to change the name attributed to the accused’s phone number in JB’s phone to ‘Fred’ and later, ‘Daniel’. The accused also sent emails to JB in July 2016 telling JB she was in love with her and that they could not be ‘open’ and would have to continue in secret at least until JB finished school. The accused also gave JB gifts and on her 17^th birthday photographs were taken in a photobooth showing the two of them kissing.
The relationship ended shortly after JB turned seventeen.
Elements of the offences
Sexual abuse of a child
To prove the charge of sexual abuse of 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.
Child is defined in s 50 CLCA to include a person who is under 18 years of age if, during the period of the relationship that is the subject of the alleged unlawful sexual relationship, the adult in the relationship is in a position of authority in relation to the person who is under 18 years of age.
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 the particulars of count 1 are as follows:
a. Kissing JB: aggravated indecent assault.[1]
b. Touching JB on the breasts: aggravated indecent assault.
c. Causing JB to touch the accused’s breasts: procuring a child to commit an indecent act.[2]
d. Causing JB to touch the accused’s vagina: procuring a child to commit an indecent act.
e. Touching the vagina of JB: aggravated indecent assault.
f. Causing Jasmyn JB to insert a finger into the accused’s vagina: unlawful sexual intercourse.[3]
g. Inserting a finger into JB's vagina: unlawful sexual intercourse.
h. Performing an act of cunnilingus on JB: unlawful sexual intercourse.
i. Causing JB to perform an act of cunnilingus upon the accused: unlawful sexual intercourse.
j. Communicating with JB for a prurient purpose with the intent of making JB amenable to sexual activity: offence as described.[4]
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA): s 56.
[2] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA): s 63B(1).
[3] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA): s 49(3).
[4] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA): s 63B(3)(b).
To prove the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
·The accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant;
·The complainant was a child.
Sexual intercourse is defined as including the penetration a person’s vagina, labia majora or anus by any part of the body of another person and includes an act of cunnilingus.
An aggravated indecent assault is an assault upon a person under the age of 17 years 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. The offence will be aggravated if it is proved that the complainant was under the age of 17 at the time. There was no dispute in this case that if the acts of kissing or touching of the breasts when the complainant was under 17 were proved, they were committed in circumstances of indecency.
To prove the offence of procuring a child to commit an indecent act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
·The accused incited or procured the commission of an indecent act by a person;
·The person is a child under the prescribed age in relation to the accused. Where the accused is a person in a position of authority the prescribed age is under 18 years.
Whether an act is indecent is for me to determine by reference to prevailing community standards of what is considered indecent. There was no dispute that if the accused caused the complainant to touch her breasts or vagina that was an indecent act.
Making a communication with the intention of making a child amenable to sexual activity
To prove this offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all of the following elements:
1.The accused made a communication.
2.The accused did so for a prurient purpose.
3.The accused did so with the intention of making a child under the prescribed age (that is, a person under the age of 18 years[5]) amenable to sexual activity.
[5] Section 63B (7) provides that if the person is in a position of authority in relation to the child the prescribed age is 18 years
The term “sexual activity” must be read in a way that gives effect to the purpose of the provision, which is to protect children from sexualisation. It includes behaviours, physical or verbal, which are capable of being sexually stimulating. It can include sending and receiving photographs or animations and engaging in discussions about them. It can also include discussing sexual touching.[6]
[6] R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 503; [3]-[6]; SAN v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 35 [37].
Issues in dispute
As to count 1, the only issue in dispute is whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in two or more of the particularised unlawful sexual acts with or towards JB when she was a child, such that their relationship can be correctly described as ‘an unlawful sexual relationship with a child’ for the purposes of s 50 (1) CLCA.
There are also specific subsidiary issues in respect of the individual allegations:
1. In respect of the alleged attempt to encourage JB and SS to kiss one another, whether the communication was for a prurient purpose as defined by s 62 CLCA.
2. In respect of the alleged photo booth kiss, whether JB was a child as defined by s 50 (12) CLCA and therefore deemed at law to be incapable of consenting to an indecent assault for the purposes of s 57 CLCA.
In respect of count 2, the issue is whether the conduct alleged occurred at all and whether the communication was for a prurient purpose as defined by s 62 CLCA.
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. As Lovell J observed in R v G [2015] SASC 186, whilst the Act is silent as to any requirement regarding the contents of the reasons for verdicts, such requirements are established in 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.
The general directions were summarised by Lovell J in R v G. 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 elected to give 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.
I must consider each count separately by reference to the evidence admissible on that count, noting that the conduct the subject of count 2, also forms part of the conduct alleged in particular (j) of count 1.
The evidence
I now turn to consider the evidence in detail.
SS
SS gave her evidence whilst the court was closed, and a one-way screen was erected between her and the accused. Her evidence was recorded by audio-visual means. I have not allowed those special arrangements to influence the weight I have given to her evidence and nor have I drawn any inference adverse to the accused.
SS was born on 13 March 1989. She was educated at [SFA] School at Newton and then attended [M] College for secondary school.[7] She completed year 12. When asked what kind of student she was at school, she said ‘kind of annoying’.[8] SS explained that she was diagnosed in 2019 as suffering from ADHD and in 2021 she was diagnosed as suffering from autism. At the time of giving evidence, she was employed as a high school teacher.[9]
[7] T 23.
[8] T 24.
[9] T 24-25.

SS had an interest in music prior to commencing at [M] College and then studied music in years eight to ten. She was involved in general choir. In year ten she was taught music by SN. The other music teacher was GH; he was head of the music department. Music was taught in the music building classrooms.[10] Extra-curricular music, such as Italian singing group and Just Jazz rehearsed in the music rooms.[11]
[10] T 26-27.
[11] T 28.
Photographs of the music building and the rooms in it were tendered: Exhibit P1.
SS said she first met a student named JB in primary school. She was never overly friendly with JB in primary school, but they knew each other from being in choir together. JB was a year below at school.[12]
[12] T 32.
In 2016, SS was in year 12. JB was in year 11. By this point she and JB were pretty good friends. They became quite close because they were in a lot of music groups together.[13]
[13] T 33.
SS first met the accused in 2015 when SN was on maternity leave and the accused was introduced as the new teacher. SS spent most of her lunch times in the music rooms doing music rehearsal and Just Jazz was on Wednesday afternoons.[14] Just Jazz was an audition group and SS auditioned but was unsuccessful in year 10 but she was asked by SN to join in year 11.[15] The accused was in charge of Just Jazz and GH would help when she was not there. There were students from year 10, 11 and 12 in Just Jazz. JB, EL and KW were in Just Jazz.[16]
[14] T 34.
[15] T 35.
[16] T 36.
The two goals of the Just Jazz group were to compete in Generations in Jazz competition in Mount Gambier and to do a performance as part of the grade for the music subject.[17]
[17] T 37.
In May 2016, when she was in year 12, SS participated in Generations in Jazz. She travelled with other students, including JB, KW and EL to Mount Gambier on a bus. They stayed in a hotel in Mount Gambier. She was originally in a room with KW and EL but on the first night she and EB (who was sharing with JB) decided to swap. SS then ended up in a room with JB.[18]
[18] T 37-38.
SS said she thought they could choose who they wanted to room with, and she thought they picked their rooms. The first room she was in before she swapped had three single beds and a little bathroom. The room she shared with JB had two single beds, small bedside tables, a small bathroom with a shower, toilet, basin and mirror. There was a table and one or two chairs.[19]
[19] T 39-40.
The bus left [M] College at 8.30am and when they arrived at the hotel in Mount Gambier they got their rooms, put their things down and then went to dinner in the main tent in the field where Generations in Jazz was being held. There were performances that night, including Kate Ceberano. All the schools competing plus teachers were there.[20]
[20] T 41.
When she was in the main tent she was sitting next to JB. They were sitting on a row of seats. It was very loud at the time because it was all live music and lots of talking on stage. At one point the accused was talking to JB and her about any previous relationships they had been in, anything they had done with the people they had been with, how far they had gone in the past and things like that. SS provided some detail to the accused. SS said she had previously spoken to the accused about her relationships, but she could not recall what she told her.[21]
[21] T 42-43.
She could hear some of what the accused was saying but it was hard to hear everything. SS had a hearing aid at the time she gave evidence but did not have one at Generations in Jazz. SS could hear the accused asking JB similar questions, how far she had gone with another girl. Neither of them was asked how far they had gone with a boy. SS said she did not feel terribly comfortable but said:
I also wasn’t terribly comfortable in most conversations so I had sort of just assumed that it was just a normal conversation that people would have. But I felt like I didn’t have sufficient enough answers for not, I don’t know how to word it, but I didn’t think that my answers were what either [JB] or [the accused] wanted to hear.[22]
[22] T44, 34-38, T 45, 1-2.
SS explained that she did not have great social skills as a teenager and did not have a lot of friends in high school.[23]
[23] T 45.
On the first night, they returned to the hotel around 9.00 or 9.30pm. SS, EB, KW and EL all went back to the room she was initially staying in. JB was also there. At one point JB said she had a phone call and left. She was gone for quite a while so SS, EB and KW went looking for her. They walked around the motel, and a few rooms and SS asked one of the other year 11 groups if JB was there, but they said they had not seen her. SS then went back to her room and talked to EL to see if they should go and ask one of the teachers. KW and EB then came back and said they had spoken to the accused and that JB was fine and she then came back soon after that.[24]
[24] T 46-47.
JB and SS then went back to their room which had two single beds. SS said the accused was also in their room, but she could not remember if she came in with them or if she came in afterwards. SS was asked what happened when they were all in the room together:
[JB] and I were sort of just sitting on our beds and when [the accused] was there there was game of truth or dare and then there was just other conversation that was similar to the conversation in the tent…
Yeah, at some point, and I don’t remember if it was a dare or if it was just a thing that happened, but [the accused] sort of mimed giving the chair a lap dance.[25]
[25] T 48, 14-17, 26-28.
SS said the accused was moving around the chair, making faces and grinding on the chair with her ‘vagina and stuff’ but they were all fully clothed. SS did not think there was any music in the room at this time.[26]
[26] T 48-49.
SS said that in the truth or dare game there were questions about previous relationships, what she would want to do with another person; all three of them were asking questions but she was told her questions were not very good. She could not recall the questions that JB asked. She could not remember how the truth or dare started. The more notable questions by the accused were, ‘would you ever date [JB]’, ‘would you kiss [JB]’ and when they both said no it turned into a bit of a dare. [27] The accused then said:
Then you should kiss [JB], you guys should kiss, you guys should get together, why wouldn’t you guys get together.[28]
[27] T 49-50.
[28] T 50, 14-16.
SS said it was not a formal, ‘I dare you to do that’ but it was ‘sort of the pushy nature of the dare’.[29] SS explained that it sort of went round in a circle, so once she asked or answered then it would be the next person’s turn. SS picked truth every time. The accused said, ‘would you kiss [JB]’ and ‘you should kiss [JB]’.[30]
[29] T 50.
[30] T 51.
SS did not kiss JB because she was her friend, and it was weird.[31]
[31] T 52.
SS was asked if there was ever a time when there was a request to demonstrate an action and she said the accused asked, ‘what would you do if you were giving oral sex to someone’ or ‘how would you go down on someone’. SS kept trying not to answer the question and she felt uncomfortable. JB was laughing along but not participating.[32] The game ended when JB and the accused left the room before midnight. Just before they left, SS said something like they should go to sleep, or they would not do well tomorrow, and the accused said she had just told everyone to get enough sleep so that they would go to bed on time.[33]
[32] T 52.
[33] T 53.
JB returned to the room around 2.00am. SS had sent her a text message around that time asking where she was. When JB returned to the room SS did not talk to her about the truth or dare game or anything that had happened in the room. SS said she has never spoken to her about it at all since it happened.[34]
[34] T 54-55.
The next day, SS said that they went to the festival and performed. SS was pretty sure that they only spent one night in Mount Gambier and returned the next day. They left after lunch and missed the presentation but found out on the bus that they had won.[35]
[35] T 55.
SS was 17 years old when she was at Generations in Jazz. At that time, she had a mobile telephone, as did most of the other girls. While they were allowed to have their phones on them, they were not supposed to use them. SS took a couple of selfies when she was sitting down with JB.[36] Photographs of SS with JB and KW when they got on the bus to leave [M] College, on the bus trip and in the main tent at the festival were tendered: Exhibit P2. SS said the third photograph was taken on the row of chairs where she had the conversation with the accused and JB.[37]
Cross-examination
[36] T 56.
[37] T 58-59.
SS said that the three classrooms in P1 were where all of the school music classes were held. There were other rooms for instrumental lessons in the same building. [38] SS agreed that there were no photographs of the specialist music classroom or theory room, but they were all in the same building. To get to the specialist music room you would go through the theory classroom. There were two entrances to the specialist classroom, the first via the theory classroom and the other from the wooden deck.[39] Each of the music office, theory room specialist classroom, non-specialist classroom and individual lesson rooms all had windows into them from the outside deck.[40]
[38] T 60-61.
[39] T 65.
[40] T 66.
In late August 2023, JB told SS that she had been to the police. Many years before that JB told SS that she had been in a sexual relationship with the accused.[41] Around 9 September 2023, SS contacted a police officer named Naomi Roberts using the contact details JB gave her. Prior to doing so, she had exchanged messages with JB and then they spoke on the telephone. JB told her that she had been in touch with the police. SS was interviewed around 21 October 2023, approximately 6 weeks after she first contacted police and a couple of months after she had first spoken to JB. SS signed a statement on 7 July 2025.[42]
[41] T 69. This was not led as complaint evidence.
[42] T 69-70.
SS was in primary school with JB, but they were in different grades. In years 9 and 10 she and JB were in similar groups, but she was not hanging out with JB. There were about 350 students at [M] College when SS graduated. There were 15 students in Just Jazz when SS was in year 12. There were weekly rehearsals on Wednesday afternoons immediately after school. SS said her very good friends were KW, EL and they were close to JB. SS said she became good friends with JB in year 12 by the time they went to Generations in Jazz.[43]
[43] T 71-72.
In April 2016 there was a school music trip to Japan. JB, KW, EL and possibly the accused went on that trip.[44]
[44] T 72-73.
SS said that she and JB wanted to room together in Mount Gambier. They discussed it and then talked to EB, and she was happy to go with KW and EL because they were all friends. SS said that the arrangement for her to room with JB was not imposed by the teachers.[45]
[45] T 73.
SS said that when they were all hanging out in the room she was initially supposed to sleep in, KW, EL, EB, JB were there. SS agreed that in her October 2023 interview with police she did not mention that EB was in the room at that time. When asked why she did not mention EB being present, she said:
It wasn’t intentionally left out, I don’t, I don’t, and I haven’t spoken to [EB] since I left school because we parted, not amicably, so I think I just forgot but it wasn’t intentionally left out.[46]
[46] T 74, 33-36.
SS said that EB was homophobic, and her family did not enjoy her hanging around with EB once they found out SS was gay. SS used to pick up EB in the mornings before school when there were early morning events with leadership. Once her parents found out she was gay, they were not ‘particularly thrilled’, and EB did not want to hang out with her anymore.[47]
[47] T 75.
SS confirmed that the reason JB gave for leaving the room on the first night was to take a phone call. After about 30-40 minutes they left to look for her. They split up and either KW or EB went to see the accused in her room. She did not see that happen. SS agreed that she told police in October 2023:
…then after about 40 minutes we went, we went to [the accused] and sort of went ‘we don’t know where [JB] is, she went to take the phone call and we’ve looked all around the complex, like all around the area we were staying, and we can’t find her and now we’re a bit worried’. And so, she sort of went ‘no worries, okay, we’ll find her’.[48]
[48] T 76, 17-23.
SS explained that she was not part of the group who went to see the accused but she was just describing what they did collectively.[49] The search for JB occurred before the truth or dare game.[50] A little later, JB turned up in her room and the accused ended up in their room but she could not recall how that happened. SS could not recall the accused apologising to JB for being angry at her earlier.[51]
[49] T 76.
[50] T 77.
[51] T 77.
SS said that the question from the accused during truth or dare when she asked how SS would perform oral sex on a girl was the most confronting aspect of the conversation and that one that stuck in her mind ever since.[52] SS agreed that she did not mention that part of the conversation in her first interview with police. She thought she would have mentioned it.[53]
[52] T 78.
[53] T 79.
At the time of the truth or dare, SS said that the fact SS was gay was not a secret and the accused knew she was gay. JB was also gay, and SS said the accused knew this. At this time, SS had a crush on JB, but she did not think the accused knew that. SS’s friends KW and EL may have known but not the wider school community.[54]
[54] T 79-80.
SS said that the accused could have left the room first. SS said she woke up and sent a text to JB. She no longer had that text message. She fell back asleep; she was a heavy sleeper.[55] SS said she was absolutely sure about this sequence of events.[56]
[55] T 80.
[56] T 80-81.
SS said that on the bus trip back, the accused was sitting just behind the driver, GH. When everyone found out about the results of the competition, the accused turned around and announced to the students on the bus that they had won. At this time, JB was somewhere near SS which was about three or four rows back.[57]
[57] T 81-82.
The first time JB told SS that she had a sexual relationship with the accused was in 2017 when SS was in her first year of university. The conversation occurred at a restaurant in Norwood, Zambrero. KW and EL were present. SS was certain that JB did not mention the truth or dare game at all in that conversation. However, she told SS that this was the very night that sexual activity started.[58]Despite this, there was no conversation about what had happened in their room beforehand.[59]
[58] T 82.
[59] T 83.
After the conversation at Zambrero and before August 2023, SS talked to JB on the phone and in person about two or three times about her relationship with the accused. At no time could she recall JB saying anything about the truth or dare in the hotel room. When JB gave her the email address for the police officer, they spoke vaguely about what happened in 2016. JB told her that she had given photographs from Generations in Jazz to the police. SS agreed they talked at least a little bit about what happed at Generations in Jazz. She thought they discussed ‘a little bit’ about the truth or dare game. SS may have brought it up. SS then agreed it was possible that this was discussed at Zambrero. However, SS denied that any such conversation had influenced her memory of that night or influenced her to remember something that had not happened.[60]
[60] T 83-85.
JB
JB gave her evidence whilst the court was closed, and a one-way screen was erected between her and the accused. Her evidence was recorded by audio-visual means. I have not allowed those special arrangements to influence the weight I have given to her evidence and nor have I drawn any inference adverse to the accused.
JB was born on 11 September 1999. Her mother was BB and her father DB. She had one sister, E. She grew up in the family home at Athelstone. It was a two-storey home, and she and her sister occupied separate bedrooms upstairs which also had a living area.[61]
Schooling
[61] T 89-90.
JB went to [SFA] School for primary school and her last year was year 7 in 2012. She then went to [M] College in 2013 for year 8 and left after completing year 12 in 2017. She turned 18 in 2017. JB knew of SS from her time at [SFA] School, but they were not friends. JB had an interest in music her whole life and it was her elective of choice at [M] College. When she started at [M] College, she was a piano player and then she got into vocal and singing and joined Bella Diva, Just Jazz and Big Band where she played the saxophone and bass guitar.[62]
[62] T 90-93.
Theory, practicals and rehearsals took place in the music theory/tech room and the practice room. There were also some private tutoring rooms. The music block was where all these rooms were located. JB was shown P1 and identified the room in photograph 4 as the practice rehearsal room.[63]
[63] T 95.
JB first met the accused when she started teaching at [M] College in 2015. GH and the accused taught music in 2015. The accused was called [F…] at school or Dr [F].[64]
[64] T 97.
JB drew a diagram of the accused’s hotel room in Mount Gambier and the accused’s house and the school grounds and music rooms: Exhibit P3.
The accused taught JB music theory in year 10. When the accused first started at [M] College, she had a reputation of being a strict teacher. A lot of students did not like her when she first came to school. In 2015, JB’s relationship with the accused was ‘pretty standard student/teacher’. She did not like the accused as a teacher.[65]
Music studies and relationship with accused
[65] T 100-101.
In year 11 JB studied music which involved theory and practical. The accused and GH taught her theory. JB was also doing extracurricular music and was in Bella Diva, a pop singing club, Just Jazz and Big Band, a musical instrument ensemble. The accused was involved in Bella Diva and Just Jazz. GH was involved in Big Band.[66] JB said that she had music classes, and her recesses and lunches were also spent doing music; she spent upwards of 12-15 hours involved in music each week. She was close to other music students: KW, EL, BM and RA. More time was devoted to theory because the students were behind in that. JB and BM were getting a lot of one and one help with theory, mainly from the accused.[67]
[66] T 101-102.
[67] T 103-105.
JB received music tuition from the accused in school hours. Other students also received one on one tuition but not as much as her. At certain stages JB and the accused were coming in early to school for extra tuition. JB said the accused then devised a plan for extracurricular tuition so they could spend time together outside of school without questions being asked.[68] JB was asked what those arrangements were:
That we could tell people [the accused] was tutoring me outside of school hours because at that stage I was – I didn’t have a car or a licence, so I couldn’t get to and from seeing [the accused]. So there had to be a reason for parents or someone to drop me off at [the accused’s] house and so it was arranged that we could tell people, my parents that she was tutoring me and that’s how we could spend time together.[69]
[68] T 106-107.
[69] T 107, 5-12.
The private tutoring occurred after JB went to Generations in Jazz. Prior to that, the accused was receiving extra tuition in theory from the accused outside of school hours. JB said she needed that assistance in theory. BM and AG were also receiving extra tuition. JB said the tuition assisted her.[70]
Relationship with accused prior to Generations in Jazz festival
[70] T 107-108.
JB explained that Generations in Jazz was a vocal competition and a big band competition over two nights. Just Jazz performed at Generations in Jazz. The accused recruited JB for Just Jazz when she was in year 10. At the time, JB was a piano player learning to sing but she was very interested in music and wanted to be involved in all the extracurricular activities.[71]
[71] T 108-109.

JB was also playing piano and singing at local cafes and restaurants and doing small gigs. She would occasionally perform with her friend RA.[72]
[72] T 110.
JB first learnt about Generations in Jazz from the accused. In order to qualify for Generations in Jazz, students had to be in the extracurricular clubs and attending performances and practices.[73] She went to Generations in Jazz in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The accused went to Generations in Jazz in May 2016.[74]
[73] T 110.
[74] T 110-111.
Before going to Generations in Jazz in 2016, the accused had never been to her house, and she had not been to the accused’s house. JB had been in the accused’s car when she would drive JB, BM and AG to the Norwood Parade. Prior to May 2016, JB had the accused’s mobile phone number so she could receive updates on Just Jazz and rehearsal times that were outside school hours. The accused would also send voice recordings of certain music that they had to learn and sing.[75] JB explained:
She did end up kind of becoming that teacher that was like the cool teacher that, you know, wanted to be in everyone’s personal lives and know what was going on and that kind of thing, so there was a little bit of communication back and forth about that. But then she became quite friendly, we became quite friendly, myself, her, [BM] and [AG] and there were lots of messages that were exchanged, jokes, sexual innuendos, group chats.[76]
[75] T 112-113.
[76] T 113, 11-19.
JB said that there was some of this before May 2016 and there were group chats involving the accused, BM and AG as well as messages just between her and the accused. JB saved the accused’s mobile number in her phone as ‘[F..]. They also communicated via Facebook Messenger before May 2016.[77]
[77] T 113-114.
In May 2016, JB was in a relationship with another girl, [CK] whom she had first met at the end of 2015. JB could not recall where CK went to school. They had been in a girlfriend-girlfriend relationship for about 5-6 months. JB had told a close selection of her friends, but she was not ‘publicly out’ at school. She had told her parents that she was bisexual or gay. She had also told the accused sometime between the end of 2015 and Generations in Jazz that she was not straight. She had not told the accused about her sexual orientation when the accused approached her to join Just Jazz.[78]
Generations in Jazz Festival
[78] T 115-117.
The students attending the 2016 Generations in Jazz festival travelled there by bus with the accused and the head of music, GH. GH drove the bus. On the way to Mount Gambier where the festival was being held, at one stage, JB sat in the footwell of the bus with another student SS. This was while the bus was driving. There were more than 12 students on the bus, and it was a 20-seater.[79]
[79] T 117-118.
The sleeping arrangements at the accommodation in Mount Gambier had been made before they went on the bus. JB understood that she was supposed to be sharing a room with some friends, KW and EL, but it was then changed and on the bus, it was decided by the accused that she had to share a room with SS. JB said that the accused told her and SS on the bus, that because she and SS were both altos, it would be better for them to share the same room so they could practice.[80]
[80] T 119-121.
After arriving at their accommodation, the students and teachers travelled in the bus to the place at which the festival was held. It was a big plot of land with massive tents with stages inside. There was a main tent that was larger than the others and had a main stage. There was a dinner held in a large hall where different schools lined up at different times to get their dinner. JB said they watched a performance that evening. JB could not recall if SS was at the dinner but was sure that the accused and GH were there.[81] JB was asked if she interacted with the accused that evening and she replied:
We were all sitting around and eating, she was sitting with us and once again it was that sense of, you know, she’s the cool teacher, she wants to be in on all the gossip, she wants to know what is going on in our lives and stuff like that, so she was within the students’ conversations.[82]
[81] T 122-124.
[82] T 124, 20-25.
JB said when they were eating dinner their school fit on a long table and there were 12 to 15 people there, including the two teachers.[83] They returned to the hotel around 8.00pm that night. They then went to their rooms and settled in. GH told them there was a curfew, but she could not recall what the curfew time was.[84]
[83] T 124-125.
[84] T 125.
About an hour or two after they returned, the accused came into their room. In their room there was a bed for SS to sleep on, and JB was on the bottom bed of a bunk bed. There was a chair and a small table. She could not recall if there was a toilet in the room.[85]
[85] T 126.
JB said someone knocked on the door and she opened it. JB could not recall anything the accused said when she came in but after that they all started chatting about Generations in Jazz. JB then said it ‘got to a point where she started, you know, asking some questions about us and then it turned into a bit of a game’.[86]
[86] T 127, 25-27.
When the conversation started SS and JB were sitting on their respective beds. JB could not say where the accused was, but at some stage she sat on the edge of SS’ bed. JB was asked about the game, and she explained:
[The accused] suggested we play truth or dare and just to get each, get to know each other a little bit more. The truth or dare was very obviously angling towards trying to get [SS] and I to kiss or to admit that there was some sort of feelings or anything like that which obviously wasn’t the case, but there were a few dares, daring us to kiss which we weren’t comfortable with, and we didn’t do. It was then turned into if you didn’t want to answer a truth, that you had to do a lap dance on a wooden chair, on the wooden chair that was there and [the accused] gave an example of that and did that.[87]
[87] T 128, 27-37.
JB described the accused as seductively straddling the chair and trying to be sexual with the way she was moving her body on the chair. She performed a lap dance and was grinding her waist and hips on the chair. The accused had been sitting on that chair during the game.[88]
[88] T 129.
JB said that she had played truth or dare before but usually with more people and the dares would not be the same. JB said she and SS did not know what kind of questions to ask and what was appropriate, so they were giving it a miss quite a bit. JB said the accused dared her and SS to kiss.[89] JB said it ‘was along the lines of ‘I dare you guys to kiss to see if there is something there’. It had been SS’ turn, and she did not answer the question, so she was given the dare. JB could not remember the question SS was asked.[90]
[89] T 131.
[90] T 132.
JB said the questions they were asked by the accused were what they had done sexually with partners, both men and women, whether they were attracted to each other, whether they would ever do anything together, the history of their past relationships and who they had dated.[91]
[91] T 132.
JB said they did ask the accused some questions of a similar kind, about her past because they really did not know what to ask. The accused answered those questions. JB said neither she nor SS gave anyone any dares. The dare for the two of them to kiss was a ‘running kind of comment throughout the night in that room’.[92] JB explained:
Just really pushing like ‘Oh you guys really like each other’ and you know like ‘You’ll never know if you’re not, if you haven’t tried’ kind of thing, just, yeah, joking like that.[93]
[92] T 133.
[93] T 134, 1-4.
JB said the dare to kiss was directed at SS and JB could not recall any dare directed towards her. The game went for about half an hour or forty-five minutes. It ended because SS said she wanted to go to sleep. The accused left the room. JB then saw SS reading her book and she then fell asleep within about half an hour. JB was on her bed on her phone during this time. JB said that the accused either ‘whispered’ to her in person or via text ‘Once [SS]’s asleep come round to my dorm and we can hang out’. Once SS was asleep JB left the room wearing a black Everlast hoodie and pants.[94]
[94] T 134-135.
The accused had told her which room she was in either in ‘whispering’ or via text message. She also told her to knock three times, and she would open the door. JB said she had been told where the teachers’ rooms were when GH gave the induction when they first arrived.[95]
[95] T 136-137.
JB knocked three times on the door to the accused’s room and the accused opened the door and let her in pretty quickly. The accused was wearing the same clothes she had on earlier. The door was shut and locked. The accused’s room was nicer; it had one bed which was a double or queen. There was a small two-seater sofa and a TV on the wall across from the bed. Towards the back of the room there was a shower and toilet area.[96] JB drew a plan of the room in 2023: Exhibit P3.
[96] T 138.
JB was asked what happened when she got inside the room and she said:
AI was a little bit unsure on where to sit and where to go so I went and sat on the couch. I felt that that was the most appropriate place to sit.
QWhy did you go to the dorm.
AWe had developed a friendship relationship prior to Generations in Jazz so I did think I was just going there to hang out and gossip like it had previously been.[97]
[97] T 139, 21-29.
JB said she thought it was inappropriate to be in a teacher’s room after curfew by herself.[98]
[98] T 139-140.
The accused came and sat next to her on the couch. JB then recounted the conversation:
…So she said ‘you know how we’ve spoken about me’, ‘me’ being [the accused] ‘possibly having feelings for [BM] and being a little bit confused about my sexuality’ and yourself, [JB] said ‘Don’t worry about it, [BM]’s quite oblivious to those things, she wouldn’t acct on those things and she wouldn’t respond, you know, if someone were to act on them’. And then asked me if I would – that scenario had me in it, what would I do. And I did think she was joking and kind of jokingly went ‘Yeah well, I guess, yeah fine, whatever’.
…if you were in [BM]’s situation, would you act on it or would like reciprocate.[99]
[99] T 140, 38; T 141, 1-10, 22-23.
JB said there had been an earlier conversation between the two of them about BM in these terms. At the time of the conversation on the couch, the accused was sitting with her legs touching JB’s legs. The accused then:
…turned to me and kissed me. It was a short kiss because I pulled away and was quite uncomfortable and unsure and just wasn’t, there was just a lot going on and I kind of pulled away and I was like I’m not sure, I’m a bit uncomfortable I don’t know that this is a good idea. You know, you’re my teacher, you are also married, and she reassured me and told me that it was okay and there’s nothing to worry about, and that she thought her husband was cheating on her anyway so the marriage part doesn’t need to matter, and that we should move to sit on the bed.[100]
[100] T 142, 7-17.
The accused kissed JB on the lips with a closed mouth. JB’s mouth was closed. The kiss lasted about twenty seconds because JB pulled away pretty quickly because she was quite shocked and uncomfortable and there was a lot going on.[101]
[101] T 142.
JB and the accused then both sat on the bed for about ten minutes. JB marked on P3 their respective positions.[102] JB described what happened during those ten minutes:
We were kissing. [The accused] kissed me. This time it was more full-on. As you asked before about mouths being open or not. Mouths were now open. We did stop kissing because I pulled away again and brought up that I was just I had a lot going on. I was stressed. I was a bit uncomfortable. There was just a lot going on. I just, I needed to stop for a minute, and once again [the accused] reassured me that ‘it’s okay, it’s going to be okay’. You know, I know her. It’s all right. And then we were kissing. Her hands were, you know, on my shoulders, on my back, on my waist kind of pulling me in and that’s when she held my hand and put it over her pants between her legs in her genital area and pressed my hand up against her genital area to apply pressure. I did that but then once again pulled my hand away. This was, this was a teacher. This had very serious repercussions. I was really nervous, not really sure what was going on and she then said, she then grabbed my hand, and this time told it was okay, and this time put it under pants and on her underwear.[103]
[102] T 143-144.
[103] T 145, 21-38, T 146, 1-2.
JB’s hand was on the accused’s genital area for about 15 seconds on the first occasion. On the second occasion, JB used her fingers to touch the outside of the accused’s vagina under her underwear. Neither of them spoke at this time. JB touched her vagina like this for about 10 minutes. She then used two fingers to penetrate the accused’s vagina for about 10 minutes. Neither of them spoke at this time.[104]
[104] T 145-146.
JB said that the accused also touched her when JB was touching the accused:
AYes, so we were kissing so she was touching my upper half of my body over my clothes and kind of moving her hands around the upper part of my body and around my thighs. She then put her hand up my top and touched my breasts and my nipples underneath my bra, like though kind of thing my bra. She did, once I had finished touching her, she did want to touch me and reciprocate. I had said no, that I wasn’t comfortable and I wanted to leave it at that.
…she was touching my thighs and asked. She said that she had never had sexual intercourse with a girl before and that she wanted to try, and so she was touching my thighs and asked if she could touch me as well.
QDid she use the words sexual intercourse.
ANo.
QDo you remember what words or word she used.
AThat she had never slept with a girl before.
QDid you respond to those words.
ANot that I can recall.
QDid she actually touch you.
AShe touched me under my top under my bra.
QDid she touch you other than – you said she touched your thighs.
AShe touched my thighs, yes.
QDid she touch you in the area of your vagina.
AShe did. Over my clothes she moved her hand in between my thighs but that was when I said, ‘I am not happy for this’ – ‘I would like this to stop here’.[105]
[105] T 147, 25-38, 1-17.
The accused’s hand was between her thighs for about a minute while they were kissing. The accused said she would really like to and that she would like JB to be comfortable but that was okay for now.[106]
[106] T 148.
JB said they ended up lying down on the bed when JB was touching the accused on the inside of her vagina.[107] JB said her clothing stayed on the whole time but the accused took off her clothing when they moved to lying down on the bed, which was after she had touched the accused on the outside of her vagina and the accused had touched JB under her top while they were kissing sitting on the edge of the bed. The accused was lying on the bed, and JB saw her kick off her pants and her underwear came off with the pants. She took her jumper off, but JB could not recall anything to do with her bra. They lay there for about 10-15 minutes and then JB went back to her dorm.[108]
[107] T 148.
[108] T 148-149.
JB said whilst they were in the room they took selfies before they started kissing or anything sexual happened.[109] The accused used JB’s phone to take the photographs. There were at least 10 selfies of the accused and a photograph of the two of them looking at each other as if they were about to kiss. JB explained that before Generations in Jazz, she and the accused already had ‘an inappropriate friendship relationship so it was normal for her to just go on my phone and take photos and use my phone’.[110]
[109] T 150-151.
[110] T 151.
JB said she accidentally took a photograph while they were moving her phone around at some stage. The photograph did show the accused’s room.[111]
[111] T 152.
JB stayed in the accused’s room for about an hour to an hour and a half. She then went back to her room. SS was there. It was dark. She tried to sleep but could not. The next morning at breakfast in the hotel it was a little awkward between her and the accused. JB said they had exchanged messages in which the accused had said that she had really enjoyed it, and she was questioning her sexuality now and did not know what to do and questioning why she had been put in this really hard situation in her life. They did speak briefly but it related to not telling anyone and it needing to stay between them, that it could impact the accused’s career and JB’s schooling. JB said that the accused said it needed to be only a ‘Generations in Jazz thing’ but implied that it could happen the next night. The accused said this multiple times. The first time it was said was before she went back to her room the first night and the next time was the following afternoon when they had a private conversation in her room.[112]
[112] T 152-154.
JB said that after breakfast they had performed at Generations in Jazz and then returned to the hotel to change out of their uniforms so they could go to dinner and the concert. JB explained how she ended up in the accused’s room:
We were texting and we spoke about us catching up to talk about it and talk about what was going on. So I went to her dorm, she let me in. This time it was obviously daytime and students were awake and around and about and actually students like lost me and were a little bit worried on where I was and it was a bit of a thing, so a few students came to [the accused’s] dorm room door and knocked on the door and asked if she knew where I was.[113]
[113] T 155, 17-25.
JB hid in the bathroom, and she heard the students say they were looking for her and could not find her and asked the accused if she knew where JB was. The accused responded, ‘all good’ and that she would look into it and not to worry about alerting GH. JB said she hid in the bathroom because she did not want to get caught in her room and the accused had said ‘bathroom, let’s go’. She thought she would be in a lot of trouble if she was found in the accused’s room. She did not think it would have been appropriate to be hanging out in a teacher’s room, but she had not been told that by anyone.[114]
[114] T 155-156.
JB went back to the accused’s room that night because the accused had told her that she should come around again and hang out and knock three times. JB waited until SS was asleep. She had not spoken to SS about what had happened the night before. It was about 10.00pm. Earlier that evening they had returned to the big hall and had dinner and watched a concert.[115]
[115] T 157-158.
When JB was in the accused’s room that night, they had a few more conversations about how the accused was feeling about her sexuality and that she was very confused and did not know if she was straight or bisexual and that JB was able to help her figure that. JB then said:
And one thing led to another and we were kissing again. Sitting on her bed, again kissing and the same content happened, so no extra content happened. I touched her vagina on the outside with my fingers and then I penetrated her vagina on the inside with my fingers. We were kissing and she did touch my breasts again.[116]
[116] T 158, 26-31.
JB said all of her clothing was still on, but the accused’s pants were definitely off as well as her jumper.[117] The accused wanted to touch her, but she stopped it again because she was not comfortable with that. JB was in the room for about an hour. She said:
We finished having relations and then it was a little bit awkward between the two of us and we kind of left it as, you know, we’re going to be friends, Generations in Jazz is over, we’re just going to be friends, she’s my teacher and my friend and it can’t be spoken about and you know, ‘I’ll see you tomorrow and we will just be on a friendly basis kind of thing. So back to my dorm I went.[118]
[117] T 158.
[118] T 159, 28-35.

JB said her own room could be locked but she could not recall whether she locked the door when she left SS in there to go to the accused’s room.[119]
Initial complaint
[119] T 159-160.
JB said that mid-morning the next day she found an area on the ‘dorm grounds’ where she could have a private phone conversation with her girlfriend CK and tell her what happened. JB could not recall the exact words she used but she told CK that she had slept with the accused. She could not be certain if she used the word ‘slept’. CK said she was shocked. JB said:
There was a bit of a running joke between [CK] and I about how close [the accused] and I were and that, you know, joking that something might happen, or that, you know something might happen with my teacher, but it was always only a joke, and we didn’t – it wasn’t – it was really a joke, so she was very shocked when I told her that something had happened.[120]
[120] T 162, 25-32.
The conversation lasted no longer than half an hour. She felt as if she needed to talk to someone about it. JB was not sure if she gave CK details about what had happened physically between her and the accused. Other topics, such as JB’s performance, were discussed. The conversation did not end well because CK was not happy, and JB felt terrible about it. [121]
Bus trip home
[121] T 162-164.
Everyone then went back to the festival on the bus. GH then drove everyone home in the bus. On the trip home, JB was initially sitting with EB. There were messages between JB and the accused in which the accused told her that she would organise a way for them to sit together on the bus. JB said the accused announced across the bus ‘[JB] can you come and help me with this? Come here and help me with this video for Generations in Jazz’.[122] At that time, JB was sitting a few rows back from the accused who was directly behind the driver. JB said she liked doing the IT and technical stuff and she felt special being the one who was going to be doing that for the video for Generations in Jazz. JB then moved to sit next to the accused about 15-20 minutes into the bus trip. A little bit later the accused announced that Just Jazz had won its division. It was starting to get dark outside.[123]
[122] T 164-165.
[123] T 166-167.
When the announcement that Just Jazz had won was made, the accused had her laptop out and they were looking through some of the videos. JB stayed sitting next to the accused for the remainder of the trip. JB then described what happened when she was sitting next to the accused:
We were sitting there and there was, there was a blanket and a pillow and it was kind of over our laps. Obviously we’d brought stuff with us to sleep with because we were going on camp. That was over the top of us and [the accused] once again grabbed my hand and moved it in between her legs, in between her thighs, towards her groin area. I very quickly pulled my hand away. We are on a bus full of my peers, [GH] my teacher is sitting one seat in front of us and you know like, I just – I wasn’t comfortable, pulled my hand away. She once again reassured me, she was whispering in my ear, yeah, ‘It’s okay, this is Generations in Jazz, so this is still okay, because it hasn’t, Generations in Jazz hasn’t ended yet. The second we are back in Adelaide is when this needs to stop, so this is okay’. And then she moved my hand again into under her pants and under her underwear and I touched her vagina with my fingers on the outside of her vagina. She was grinding into my fingers until she finished.[124]
[124] T 168, 14-32.
JB said that the accused told her that they were not going to get caught, GH was oblivious, and the students were asleep. The laptop was still sitting on her knees. JB touched her for about five minutes until she climaxed.[125]
The relationship with the accused after Generations in Jazz
[125] T 169.
Following her return home, JB said there was a lot of texting between her and the accused. Much of it was about the accused struggling with her sexuality and she was very religious. The accused told her that she was starting to have feelings for her and that she was really special. JB said:
In my, my eyes this was an accomplished teacher in the music industry that was taking, you know, a big interest in me and that, you know, I was obviously, you know, pretty good and doing well and might be able to go somewhere and stuff like that and, you know. But the conversations were a lot about that, that she didn’t, she didn’t want to stop and that we had said that it was just at Generations but she didn’t want to stop and she doesn’t know if she can stop and that, you know, we need to have some more conversations about this in person.[126]
[126] T 170, 15-25.
JB said her responses were a little bit more realistic, ‘like I don’t understand how this would work. Like, it’s not going to work you’re a teacher and I’m a student. It’s I don’t understand how this could work’. JB said she was having feelings for the accused as well, but she did not tell her that. Eventually they spoke about the fact that she had feelings for the accused.[127]
Further sexual contact at school
[127] T 171, 8-13.
JB was asked about further physical contact between her and the accused. She said it happened once in the music theory room:
This was at a stage where we were both coming to school early or leaving school late and this was a time that we had come to school early so we were on the property before any other students or any other teachers. We were the only ones in the music room. We were sitting on the music room long desks and we were sitting next to each other. I did actually have music work out that I was looking through and doing. She was sitting next to me and she once again she was on a wheelie chair. She grabbed my hand and put it between her legs and it always started off as over her clothes and then under her clothes as well.[128]
[128] T 172, 5-16.
JB said there would have been other staff members at the campus, but GH was not at the music department yet. JB identified the room as marked ‘theory room’ in P3. She said the touching lasted possibly 10 or 15 minutes.[129] It ended when the accused climaxed. That did not happen again in the music theory room.[130]
[129] T 172.
[130] T 173.
JB said there was one other occasion that she could recall and that was in the storage room in the music office. The storage room was towards the back of the office. There was nowhere to sit in that room, and they were both standing. The accused had suggested that they could quickly sneak in there and kiss. They did so and were kissing and touching. The accused was moving her hands all over her and ran her hands up the legs of her skirt.[131] JB said:
…I wasn’t too comfortable. I’m, you know, not someone that’s comfortable in a dress anyway so being in a school uniform I was just really uncomfortable. It wasn’t me. It really emphasised the student/teacher difference.[132]
[131] T 173-174.
[132] T 173, 36-38; T 174, 1-2.
JB said she was in her winter uniform. The touching stopped when GH walked into the music office. The accused exited first and escorted him out so JB could then sneak out. JB described that as follows:
…[the accused] and I were in the storage room. We were kissing. My hands were between her legs touching her vagina on the outside and she was grinding into my hands, hand, sorry, and heard the music room door open, froze, stop but she said ‘Don’t stress, it’s [GH]. He’s oblivious’, she’ll be able to handle him so she exited the storage locker and then – not storage locker, storage room and then I’m not too sure, lured him out of there so I could exit.[133]
[133] T 175, 7-15.
JB said this occurred on a school day around midday. When asked if she was aware of other students being out and about at that time, she said:
ANot really. [The accused] used to be able to pull me out of class if she wanted to because I was a music student and it was known that I did all of this extra curricular music stuff. No-one really questioned when I was taken out of class for music things.
QMy question was more directed to were you, when you went into the storage room were you aware of other students out and about in the school.
ANo.
QThere were no other students around.
AIt was during class time so students were in all classes.
QWhat class were you pulled out of.
AI can’t remember the day it happened. Like, she did pull me out of quite a few classes but I can’t recall on that day.
QWhen you were pulled out of classes what would happen for that to occur. Was there a discussion with the teacher.
AYeah. She’d either text me and I’d go tell my teacher that I’ve been asked, you know, on recess break that I need to go there afterwards once class has resumed. There were occasions where she sent an email which I could the show the teacher and the teacher would release me from class. I think there were even occasions that she came down and grabbed me from the room and said ‘I need to grab Jasmyn’.
QWere they emails to your student email address.
AYes.[134]
[134] T 175, 29-38; T 176, 1-19.
JB said she was pulled out of class multiple times a week and she was absent for between 15 minutes to 80 minutes which equated to two lessons. These occasions linked up with the accused’s free classes, but JB did not really know when her free classes were. JB said that other than the occasion in the theory room and the storage room there were no other occasions at school.[135]
Further sexual contact in the accused’s car
[135] T 176-177.
JB said the accused drove a gold four door Lexus hatchback. JB said she and the accused had conversations about needing ways for them to see each other and the accused suggested that she could drop JB home from school and that way they could spend time together in the car. JB did not tell her parents that the accused was dropping her off; she thought her parents believed her friends were dropping her home.[136] When the accused dropped her home she would not pull up in front of her house.[137]
[136] T 178.
[137] T 180.
JB recalled an occasion where the accused drove her to a darker area of Linear Park that did not have streetlights. They went there more than once and had sex in the back of her car.[138] JB described the encounter:
She, at this stage because it was in the back of a car, she would wear a skirt so that she didn’t have to remove all her clothes and things like that. She’d pull up and we’d both get in the back of her car and start kissing and, you know, every time it did start with her leading my hand because like it’s just, you know, can you imagine a kid that young? I didn’t have the confidence, I was too scared, I was too nervous, I was worked up and stuff like I just year, so like it was initiated by her kind of moving my hand and going you know it's ‘okay, this is what I want to do and this is’ you know and it would start with me touching her…
Touching her on the outside of her vagina, penetrating her on the inside of her vagina and at this stage, I used my tongue on the outside of her vagina.[139]
[138] T 178.
[139] T 179, 4-19.
The sexual encounters in the car occurred at least six times.[140] JB initially said that she had been in the accused’s car on prior occasions when she was taken to the Norwood Parade with a couple of other students. She then said that she was only taken once to the Norwood Parade. This was before Generations in Jazz.[141]
Sexual contact at the accused’s house
[140] T 179.
[141] T 180.
About a month after Generations in Jazz JB first went to the accused’s house. She said it was ‘devised’ that JB could tell her parents that she was getting privately tutored by the accused to explain why she would need to spend time at the accused’s house. Her parents believed that and gave her cash. The amount was $40. The accused told JB ‘You can pocket that’. Her father dropped her off at the accused’s house. The tutoring occurred at least weekly, if not multiple times a week. On a few occasions, JB saw the accused’s husband [D] at the house and spoke with him. He was a teacher at another school. She saw him at least four times.[142]
[142] T 181-183.
If there was any actual tutoring, that took place at the accused’s piano in her music room. When JB went to the accused’s house they would hang out as if they were dating, they would cook stuff together, ‘chill’ on the couch, talk about their days, talk about television shows and have intercourse. These occasions were after school hours or on the weekend. It would either be straight after school and the accused would drive her to her house, or it would be later on in the night and JB’s father would drop her off. That was usually around 8pm. On each occasion she would be at the accused’s house for a couple of hours.[143]
[143] T 183-184.
JB and the accused spoke to her parents about having tutoring lessons. Her parents were not told that there was any set time for the duration of the lesson. JB would text or call her father to pick her up. The shortest time she would be there was half an hour, and the longest time was four hours, sometimes during the week. JB said that in the six-month period there were at least twenty tutoring sessions. She did not have tutoring during school holidays because she could tell her parents she was going out with friends and the accused would pick her up or BM would take her there. Whatever length of time she stayed at the accused’s house, the price was always $40. She had tutoring lessons at the accused’s house on weekends about once a fortnight depending on the accused’s husband’s movements. If he was home, they would act like student and teacher. The accused told her that her husband was worried about how close she was getting with students and JB in particular.[144]
[144] T 184-185, 200-201.
Photographs were taken of the two of them at the house and in group chats, including Snapchat with JB, the accused and BM the photographs would be distributed there. Photographs of JB and the accused on a lounge in the accused’s home were tendered along with a photograph of them at a radio station performance: Exhibit P4.[145]
[145] T 186-187.
Every time JB went to the accused’s house there was sexual interaction between them. JB said the sexual interaction was of the ‘same content’ but the first time the accused touched her was at her house:
So, she used her hand to rub the outer side of my vagina. I was quite nervous. Quite stressed. A bit uncomfortable about it but that stage it had been going on for a while and [the accused] had expressed how much she wanted to and she wanted to know if she was, you know, straight or not and that this would help. So, that was – that was the first time she touched me underneath my clothes on my vagina.[146]
[146] T 188, 11-20.
This touching occurred on the accused’s couch about four times.[147]
[147] T 188.
Other sexual encounters occurred at the accused’s house including the use of sex toys:
ASo, I obviously wasn’t of age and was not able to go into a sex store or anything like that. So, at one stage [the accused] got quite excited and wanted to go and get some sex toys for us – for us to use to experiment with and the things that were gotten were a, like a rabbit vibrator-type thing and a penis ring and her idea was the penis ring would wrap around my fingers while I was penetrating her.
QCan you describe the penis ring.
AYes.
QWhat did it look like.
AIt was silicony. It was clear silicon and it was a circle and it had a little battery on the end which obviously that is what made it vibrate and that little batter thing was purple.
QDid you ever do anything with the penis ring.
AYes.
QTell her Honour what you did.
AThe idea was to wrap it a few times around my finger and then have it on while I was penetrating the inside of [the accused’s] vagina with my fingers.
QThat was the idea.
ADid that happen once or more than once.
QMore than once.
ASo what was the other item. You said it had something to do with a rabbit.
QA rabbit-type vibrator.
AYes.
QI want you to tell her Honour what you did with it.
AYes, so [the accused] was lying on the couch. She had no pants on and the rabbit-type vibrator was light blue and the vibrator was held up to her outer vagina until she climaxed.
QDid that happen once or more than once.
AMore than once.
QAre you able to say how many times you used the vibrator or the penis ring.
AThe penis ring was used more than the vibrator because it was easy for her to just like bring along in the back seat of her car.[148]
[148] T 189, 2-38; 190, 1-5.
JB described an occasion when she and the accused were having sex, and the accused was leaning over her on the couch and had her fingers in JB’s vagina. They heard the accused’s husband’s car in the garage.[149] There were other occasions at the accused’s house when the accused put her fingers in JB’s vagina. There were also mutual acts of cunnilingus. However, when the accused performed cunnilingus on JB it did not last very long because she was not comfortable with it. There were no other sexual acts that occurred at the accused’s house.[150] The accused touched JB’s breasts every time they had sex. JB touched the accused’s breasts more than once and said she did this on each of the occasions they were alone together in Mount Gambier.[151]
[149] T 190.
[150] T 190-191.
[151] T 212-213.
JB also recounted an occasion when the accused bought some red lingerie, and they went driving around near JB’s house to find somewhere they could park so the accused could show her the lingerie. They parked in a vacant car park after hours which turned out to be JB’s psychologist’s office. The accused got undressed in the back of the car and showed her the lingerie, which she already had on. It was a red and lacy pair of knickers and bra. She took selfies of it on JB’s phone and JB took one photograph of her sitting in the back of the car. JB said there was the ‘same content of outer penetration, inner penetration and cunnilingus’.[152]
Sexual contact at JB’s house
[152] T 191-19.
The accused would come around to JB’s house and she and BM would hang out. There was a lot of joking, sexual jokes and innuendos but no sexual acts occurred at her parent’s house because JB was not comfortable with that. On a few of those occasions, JB’s parents and younger sister were home. She and the accused kissed when they were at JB’s house. It happened lots of times when it was just her and the accused. If they were in her bedroom they would kiss. If BM was there, whenever she would leave the room to go the toilet or get a drink, they would get closer and kiss.[153] Photographs taken on occasions when the accused was at JB’s house after Generations in Jazz and before her 17^th birthday were tendered: Exhibit P5.
Concealment of relationship
[153] T 192-193.
JB said that she and the accused would take photographs of each other or selfies. Initially she had the accused’s number saved in her phone as [F…]. The accused subsequently asked her to change it to Fred following an occasion in PE class when JB was on the phone and her teacher took it away from her. There was a message from the accused on there under the name [F…]. The teacher did not say anything to her but when JB told the accused about this, she said ‘Whoa, we need to change this. We can’t have my name popping up on your phone’. JB said it was changed to Fred and ‘that would have been from the end of about 2015 through to Generations in Jazz.’[154]
[154] T 194.
JB said that after Generations in Jazz she had to change the accused’s name again. She explained that she was quite close to BM at that time and:
You know, [BM] would see my phone and things like that and couldn’t see content of the messages that was coming from [the accused]. [BM] knew that Fred was [the accused] because she had [the accused] saved in her phone also as Fred they had had that conversation as well. So her name in my phone was changed to Daniel and it was explained to, you know, people that saw my phone or anything like that that Daniel was a guy that I was speaking to because at this stage people didn’t know that I wasn’t straight.[155]
Phone communications between JB and the accused
[155] T 194, 36-38; T 195, 1-7.

I have also approached the evaluation of the emails on the basis that the boundaries of a relationship between two people are not capable of exhaustive or uniform definition: two people can be in a loving relationship without being in a sexual relationship; two people can be in a sexual relationship without being in a loving relationship; two people can be in an intimate affectionate relationship without being in a sexual relationship. When I use the term ‘romantic relationship’ in the discussion below, that is intended to refer to a loving relationship which may or may not involve a sexual component.
12 July 2016 – ‘my confused feelings’ email
The inference arising from this email, given it was sent by the accused to JB, is that the attachment represents the accused’s confused feelings towards JB. An examination of the attachment reveals that the overarching theme is one of an impossible love affair or romance juxtaposed with the joy of living in the moment:
‘when you know you both love each other but still you just can’t be together’, ‘I wish we could have met when I was in a different place in life’, ‘sometimes you meet the right person, it’s just the wrong time’, ‘love that we cannot have is the one that lasts the longest, hurts the deepest and feels the strongest’, ‘it’s driving me insane how I can’t have you’ ‘just because we can’t be together doesn’t mean I won’t love you’, ‘the worst battle is between what you know and what you feel’.
‘appreciate life as it happens. Moments will soon pass and you will wish you had treasured them more’, ‘love without limits, dream without fear and live in the moment’, life is short, time is fast, no replays, no rewinds, so just enjoy every moment you have and make the best out of it’, ‘stop worrying about the past. Stop thinking about the future. Just live in the moment and be happy’.
The reasonable inference that arises from this email is that the accused loves JB but recognises that she cannot be in a romantic relationship with her. Competing reasonable inferences arise as to whether, at the time of the sending of this email a romantic relationship already existed but has come to an end, or a romantic relationship is desired but recognised as impossible.
17 July 2016 ‘read later at home’ email.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the obvious and commonsense reasonable inference to draw is that what the accused said in that email is true.
A reasonable inference that arises from this email is that the accused and JB have discussed how they feel about each other:
‘In saying that I want to tell you how much I appreciate you telling me your feelings and trusting me with your emotions, as I know that is also difficult for you’.
An inference that also arises from this email is that the accused loves JB and wants JB but recognises that she cannot have JB:
‘My feelings for you are not lust, but love. I’m scared that you will easily move on, and yet I will be stuck with you in my heart. The selfish part of me wants you and only you, yet the compassionate part understands that you need a relationship that is where you are at in life; as much as that hurts (a lot) to admit.
‘To be honest, I think I will always love you, and you will always be the one that ‘got away’…’
Competing reasonable inferences arise as to whether, at the time of the sending of this email a romantic relationship already existed but has come to an end, or a romantic relationship is desired but recognised as impossible.
28 July 2016 ‘hey’ email
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the obvious and commonsense reasonable inference to draw is that what the accused said in that email was true. Accordingly, the accused was being truthful when she said she was in love with JB but acknowledged that JB was in a relationship with SM and that it would be better for JB to be in a relationship with SM, as much as the accused wished it could be her.
‘I want you to know that it is not you, it is my insecurities and fear of losing you even though you aren’t mine’, ‘I’m jealous and envious of [S] and wish it could be me’.
‘Long term, I don’t think I could make you happy like [S] could. I’m old and boring haha and want a stable relationship. With all my heart I want it to be you but I don’t know if that is fair on you, particularly with all the hiding and I feel like I am holding you back. You deserve better than me and I’m sorry I have been so torn – I really want you and I don’t want you seeing anyone else, but then I want you to be happy and meet someone your age without the headache and confusion I am causing’
‘To see someone I love move on, in any situations is not easy, regardless’.
The competing reasonable inferences that arise from this email are either that JB and the accused are already in a romantic relationship, which JB has decided to terminate so she could start another one with SM or that the accused has fallen in love with JB but not yet commenced a romantic relationship with her.
29 July 2016 email – hey<3.
This email is undoubtedly the strongest evidence supporting the existence of a clandestine romantic relationship between JB and the accused and supporting JB’s evidence that the relationship was a sexual one. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the obvious and commonsense reasonable inference to draw is that what the accused said in that email is true. The inference that arises from this email is that JB has already told the accused that she wanted to pursue or is pursuing a relationship with SM.
The competing reasonable inferences that arise from the balance of the email are that the accused was already in a romantic relationship with JB which she did not want to end but at the same time recognised it was a clandestine relationship which was not fair on JB or that the accused had fallen in love with JB and wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with her in the future depending on the outcome of JB’s relationship with SM.
The phrases ‘I want you to be mine’, ‘if we are really meant to be, then in time, whether that be six months of a year, we will be together’, ‘you have only had one gf’, ‘if you did be official with her, then it will either become clearer that we aren’t meant to be together’ are consistent with either an existing romantic relationship or the contemplation of a romantic relationship in the future.
The sentences ‘Right now we can’t be open. Right now we would have to continue as we are, in secret until you at least finish school’ give rise to the reasonable inference that there is an existing clandestine relationship between JB and the accused. The acknowledgement of the need for it to remain clandestine until JB finished school leads to the inference that it is a romantic and sexual relationship or at least one that would meet with disapproval or disapprobation.
The emails are notable for the absence of any reference to sexual activity. By this time, on the prosecution case, the accused has sent at least one sexually explicit text message to JB, has written ‘I want to fuck [f…]’ on JB’s whiteboard in her bedroom, and has engaged in a multitude of sexual acts, including the use of sex toys, in a variety of locations, some of which involved very brazen conduct. The sexual acts, on the prosecution case, are an important and significant aspect of their relationship.
The emails themselves appear completely unguarded, raw and personal. In those circumstances, if the sexual relationship as described by JB existed, it is surprising that there is not one, direct or veiled, reference to the sexual activity in which they have been engaging for months. On the prosecution case, the accused has been prepared to express her sexual desire of JB in searingly explicit terms in the unguarded text message from ‘Daniel’[513] and in the crude message on the whiteboard. In contrast, in the only reference to a sexual desire or feeling, the accused expressly disavowed any feelings of lust towards JB in the email of 17 July 2016.
[513] Page 18, P11.
In those circumstances, when viewing the emails globally and exercising the caution to which I have referred, I am not satisfied that they constitute implied admissions by the accused of having engaged in any of the sexual acts alleged. Depending on the inferences ultimately drawn, they are capable of supporting JB’s evidence that she and the accused were involved in a clandestine, inappropriate sexual relationship in which they were codependent emotionally, loved each other and were in love with each other. However, the emails themselves cannot be elevated to proof beyond reasonable doubt of any of the sexual acts alleged nor do they corroborate JB’s account of the specific sexual acts alleged.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt of the sexual acts alleged in each of the particulars still depends upon an acceptance beyond reasonable doubt of JB’s evidence.
Assessment of the accused’s evidence and further findings of fact
The accused gave sworn evidence on oath. No prior inconsistent statements were proved and there were no internal inconsistencies of any note exposed in her evidence.[514] In this regard, the contrast between her evidence and my findings regarding the evidence of JB and SS is stark. I formed a favourable impression of the accused in the witness box. For me to reject her evidence on any topic or in its entirety the prosecution would have to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that it was not reasonably possibly true.
[514] The only internal inconsistency identified by Mr Allen was the accused’s failure to mention in examination in chief the possibility that there was more than one set of the photographs in P8. The accused was not asked questions about what occurred after the photographs were printed or whether more than one set was printed. In cross-examination, she was asked about what she said to JB after the photographs were printed out and it was in that context that she said she thought the machine printed several copies. I do not regard this as an inconsistency.
The focus of the attack on the accused’s credibility, was, understandably, the emails in P6 and the photographs in P8. I have set out my findings regarding the accused’s evidence about P6 and P8 towards the end of these reasons, so as to deal with disputed matters in their chronological sequence. However, in my overall evaluation of the accused’s evidence on the issues in dispute I have taken into account the findings I have made regarding P6 and P8.
I remind myself that the accused bears no onus and has no obligation to prove anything. I remind myself that rejection of the accused’s evidence means that I put it to one side and determine whether the evidence in the prosecution case proves either charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Educational and work history
The accused’s evidence about her educational and work history was not challenged and I accept it. In particular, the accused’s evidence about the institutions at which she was employed in 2016 and the hours and days she worked at each of them was not challenged. I consider the evidence in cross-examination about her thesis topic and research paper irrelevant to the issues in dispute and have disregarded it.
Accordingly, I find that:
·In semester one of 2016, the accused 0.3 at [M] College (equivalent of one and half days) and 0.6 at [T] College and also undertaking casual work at the University of Adelaide.
·In semester one of 2016, the accused taught music and religion at [M] College. She taught music to year 8 and 9 students.
·In semester one of 2016, on Mondays the accused had one class after recess starting at 11.05am for forty minutes and she left immediately afterwards to work at [T] College in the afternoon.
·In semester one of 2016, on Wednesdays, the accused attended [M] College from lunchtime onwards, taking an ensemble at lunch and a Just Jazz ensemble between 3.30-4.30pm.
·In semester one of 2016, on Thursdays she worked from recess onwards to the end of the day and travelled immediately to Adelaide University to give a lecture.
·In semester one of 2016, on Fridays the accused was at [M] College for a couple of subjects in the middle of the day.
·In semester two of 2016, the accused was 0.8 at [T] College.
Having accepted this evidence, I am satisfied and find that the accused did not teach any classes that started before recess on Mondays and Thursdays; any classes that started before lunchtime on Wednesdays or any classes before midday on Friday. I am satisfied and find that the accused did not teach a year 11 music class in 2016. Accordingly, I reject JB’s evidence that she was in a music theory class taken by the accused in 2016 when the accused took JB’s phone and put it down her cleavage in front of the class. I note that this allegation was not put to the accused in cross examination.
Relationship with JB in 2015
I also accept the accused’s evidence that she did not see JB between the end of the 2015 school year and the beginning of the 2016 school year. I am satisfied on the accused’s evidence, there being no evidence to the contrary, that the relationship between the accused and JB prior to the commencement of the 2016 school year was entirely professional and a normal student/teacher relationship.
Failure to maintain professional boundaries
I accept the accused’s evidence that she perceived that she was not initially liked by the students at [M] College. That was supported by the evidence of BM and JB that they did not like the accused initially. She described herself as a strict teacher with high expectations and I consider that to be plausible, given her academic qualifications and achievements. I infer and find that the accused wanted to be liked by the students at [M] College. In my view, this explains much of her subsequent behaviour which led to what can only be described as her abject failure to maintain appropriately professional relationships with some of her students.
The accused’s desire to be liked by her students led her to communicating with students with whom she had a particular rapport, namely BM, JB and AG, on Facebook Messenger and group text messages. Whilst I accept the accused’s evidence that the initial purpose of contacting students via text message was to provide them with information about music tuition related matters, this opened the door for communications of a social nature which the accused should have, but did not, discourage. The distinction between teacher and student in respect of JB rapidly became blurred in the first semester of 2016. I am satisfied and find that JB was not the first student for whom that had occurred. BM’s evidence establishes that the accused had failed to maintain an appropriate teacher/student boundary with BM in 2015 whilst BM was still a student at [M] and that continued when BM became a student at [T] College in 2016.
BM became good friends with JB following their attendance at the 2015 Generations in Jazz. In those circumstances, it is easy to see how it came to be that the two of them spent time together with the accused in 2016 outside of school hours. BM was being taught by the accused at [T] College and the accused was JB’s tutor and teacher.
BM’s evidence, which I have accepted, established that JB would often meet BM and the accused at [T] College and then the accused would drive them to get food, or they would drive around singing songs. The videos in P12 are snapshots which provide clear examples of such occasions and the atmosphere of fun and frivolity. It is against the background of her professionally inappropriate friendship with BM which had started in 2015, that the accused developed a professionally inappropriate friendship with JB.
On the prosecution case there was no sexual relationship or inappropriate physical conduct between the accused and JB prior to Generations in Jazz. The photographs in P11 in the motel room shared by JB and SS were all, on the prosecution case, taken prior to the occasion of count 2 and particular (j) of count 1. If nothing else was known about those photographs, one would be forgiven for thinking that the accused was just one of a group of teenagers taking silly ‘selfies’ and striking humorous poses.
Instead of maintaining professional boundaries with some of her students, in particular JB, I am satisfied that by May 2016, the accused had ingratiated herself with them, learning about their personal lives, their sexual orientation and the things that were troubling them. I accept the accused’s evidence that, by the end of term 1, she saw herself as JB’s ‘Aunty’ or ‘big sister’, but the truth of the matter was that she had become close to JB and started to care for her in a manner that went well beyond the appropriate level of pastoral care for a teacher to give a student.
I am satisfied that this unprofessional and inappropriate relationship with JB continued throughout 2016 until just after JB’s 17^th birthday on 11 September 2016. However, I accept the accused’s evidence that she stopped tutoring JB in early August 2016 and from that time on she was no longer in a position of authority over JB. There was no evidence from JB, DB or BB or any independent source refuting the accused’s account regarding the date tutoring ceased.
Generations in Jazz
The accused’s evidence about her seating position in the bus on the trip to and from Mount Gambier accorded with that of GH and with the likely seating position of a teacher accompanying a number of students on a long bus trip. I also accept the accused’s evidence regarding the circumstances in which EB and SS came to swap rooms and that they were not told the real reason why that occurred. JB said that the decision to swap rooms was communicated by the accused, but the reason given was that she and SS were both altos. The accused’s evidence was that following a request by EB’s parents that EB not share a room with BB, a decision was made to alter the arrangements, and SS was told she was to swap with EB. I am satisfied that this occurred and that the accused did not make this decision, but it was communicated to her, and she was asked to implement it. She was told not to communicate the true reason for the decision.
I also accept the accused’s evidence that she became aware that JB had gone missing on the first night. Her evidence accords with that of KW and SS regarding the timing of this event. I consider it entirely plausible that the accused, in her position as responsible for a number of students accommodated in a rural motel, would have been angry when she found JB. Her account of finding JB coming out some bushes and remonstrating with her was not refuted by the evidence of KW or SS, who could not recall the circumstances in which JB was eventually located.
In these circumstances and given her fondness of JB and what the accused knew about JB’s personal circumstances and mental health struggles, it is entirely plausible that having remonstrated with JB in the manner she described, she sought to apologise.
I have carefully considered the account given by the accused of what occurred in the hotel room. It accords with what can be seen in the photographs in P11 and with what I have already found to be a relationship which went beyond student/teacher and was inappropriate and unprofessional. The fact that, by this time, JB had already confided in her that she had a fantasy about a teacher/student relationship with was the subject of a movie called ‘Bloomington’, should have raised alarm bells.
Instead, the accused encouraged JB by agreeing to pose for a photo while pretending to kiss JB in SS’s presence. I am satisfied on the evidence that this was clearly meant to be a joke, but it was a dangerous one to play with a vulnerable young girl struggling with her identity and sexuality. The accused appeared to give no thought at the time to how such photographs might be viewed by other students, teachers or parents. Such photographs could have been distributed at the touch of a button to the world at large. Whilst such a stellar lack of judgment reflects very poorly on the accused, it does demonstrate, in my view, that the accused was not attempting to conceal or hide her interactions with SS and JB, something I would have expected her to do if she was intent on engaging in sexualised behaviour with either of them.

The accused steadfastly denied on oath that she engaged in any sexualised conduct or conversation in that room, including the truth or dare game. Given the findings I have made regarding the evidence of JB and SS on this issue, I am prepared to accept the accused’s account as reasonably possibly true. I am not prepared to draw an inference that the accused’s willingness to pose for photographs of the kind in P11 or behave in such a familiar way with students makes it more likely that she would have then engaged in sexualised conversation with JB and SS. It follows that I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct the subject of count 2 or particular (j) of count 1.[515]
[515] As particular (j) also included the communication comprised of the screenshot of the explicit sexual message from ‘Daniel’ on page 18 of P11, it remains necessary to consider whether that conduct has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused steadfastly denied on oath that JB was in her room on the first night at the Mid-City Motel. On the prosecution case, what happened in the room shared by JB and SS was the context in which the invitation to JB to attend the accused’s room was extended. Given the infirmities I have identified in the evidence of JB and SS on this topic, and the absence of independent evidence to confirm that the photograph on page 16 in P11 was taken in the accused’s room (and on the first night) I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that JB went to the accused’s room that night and engaged in the sexual activity alleged.
Tutoring
I accept the accused’s evidence regarding how she came to start tutoring JB and that JB was not the only student she tutored. BM’s evidence supports the accused’s account that she offered students extra assistance. I prefer the accused’s evidence over that of JB regarding the frequency of the tutoring. I accept the accused’s evidence that her husband was often home. The evidence overwhelming establishes that those tutoring sessions extended to socialising, sometimes involving BM, at JB’s house and also at the accused’s house. This likely accounts for BB’s impression that the tutoring was more frequent. BB was aware that JB was socialising with the accused at her house but did not express any concern. I make no criticism of BB for this, as she thought the accused had JB’s best interests at heart, but the unhealthy relationship that was developing was left unchecked.
Denials of sexual activity with JB
The accused rejected any suggestion that there was any sexual activity with JB at her house, or at JB’s house or in the accused’s car or in the music theory room or storage room. Her account that she was never alone with JB early in the morning before 8.00am was not independently refuted and I accept it. She denied owning sex toys in 2016 and 2017. Her denials appeared credible and convincing, and given the infirmities in JB’s evidence on these matters I cannot reject them beyond reasonable doubt. I accept the accused’s evidence that the cushions on the white sofa in her house were stitched to the base and could not be lifted from the base. Her evidence on that topic is supported by the photographs of the couch. I find that JB’s account of hiding the sex toys under the cushion could not have happened.
Gifts, the ‘Daniel’ message and P8
The accused swore on oath that she did not gift JB the notebook with collages on the front cover, did not make the collages in P9 and did not give her the gift box on page 5 of P11. I accept the accused’s evidence on this topic. There was no independent evidence to support JB’s account about these gifts. I cannot discount the reasonable possibility that JB herself made those collages and that the gift box came from another source.
The accused denied on oath that she asked JB to store her phone number under the name ‘Daniel’ in her phone and denied that she sent the photograph on page 3 of P11 or the sexually explicit message on page 18 of P11. There is a stark contrast between the style and content of the sexually explicit message from ‘Daniel’ and the emails in P6 authored by the accused. There is not a single explicitly sexual reference in P6 (with the exception of the word ‘lust’ which is a sexual feeling disavowed by the accused in P6). These were private emails sent by the accused under her own name and email address which were replete with emotion and feeling but totally devoid of any explicit reference to a sexual relationship or sexual acts. I will return to this topic when I further analyse the accused’s evidence regarding the emails in P6.
In the absence of any independent evidence to support JB’s account that messages or photographs from Daniel were messages from the accused[516], and that the accused gave her the gifts referred to above, or that the accused wrote ‘I want to fuck [f…]’ on her whiteboard,[517] I am not prepared to reject the accused’s denials on oath.
[516] For example, an extraction of JB’s mobile telephone or an analysis of the hard drive on which the screenshot was found.
[517] For example, evidence from a handwriting expert analysing a known sample of the accused’s handwriting and comparing it with the words written on the whiteboard.
The accused’s evidence regarding P8 was convincing. She did not go so far as to say that she was certain about the sequence in which the photographs were taken. She did not suggest that the JB simply pulled her in and kissed her unexpectedly. She admitted that it was meant to be a pretend kiss. The fact that she had previously posed with JB in that same manner for a photograph was established by the photographs in P11. This was the sort of juvenile prankish behaviour in which the accused inappropriately engaged with JB in 2016.
I accept the accused’s evidence that at this time she did not have romantic feelings for JB. Her evidence on that topic was supported by the evidence of JB that the accused had voluntarily exited JB’s life permanently by the time she started a relationship with SM and the concessions she eventually made when confronted with the email in D13 that the accused had blocked her on FB and refused to take her calls after her 17^th birthday. Accordingly, I am satisfied and find that the kiss depicted in P8 was not intentional or mutual. It was not an unlawful sexual act because JB was 17 and an adult and it was not an indecent assault on JB because it was initiated by JB.
Relationship with JB in June/July 2016 and the emails in P6
I am satisfied and find that by June 2016, JB was in love with the accused. I am satisfied and find that JB told the accused this. JB had a fantasy about having a relationship with a female teacher and had harboured this fantasy throughout 2016. She made no secret of this amongst her close friends or the accused. I am satisfied that by June 2016, JB was emotionally dependent upon the accused. That this situation had arisen was because the accused had breached the boundaries of a professional teacher/student relationship with an emotionally vulnerable student.
I am satisfied and find that by July 2016 the accused felt trapped and had put herself in a position with JB which left her career and marriage at risk. I accept the accused’s evidence that JB’s behaviour towards the accused became increasingly erratic and obsessive and that JB was contacting her multiple times a day by phone, or Facebook messages. The accused’s subsequent conduct in stepping back from their friendship and then blocking JB and refusing to take her calls is consistent with the accused’s evidence about JB’s behaviour. D 13 and JB’s evidence about it supports the accused’s account. I make it clear, that this was a situation entirely of the accused’s making as she had ingratiated herself in the life of a vulnerable young woman who was clearly infatuated with the accused and wanted a relationship with her. I am satisfied and find that JB was expressing suicidal ideation to her parents and to the accused by June 2016.
I accept the accused’s evidence that she asked JB and BM to delete messages in the group chat that reflected poorly on her professionally. I am satisfied that she did this at a time when she started to become concerned about JB’s behaviour. I am not prepared to reject the accused’s evidence that she did not ask JB to delete anything else from her phone. The fact that emails and other documentary or photographic evidence remained in JB’s possession supports her evidence that she did not do so.
I have considered carefully the accused’s explanation for each of the emails in P6 and in particular her evidence that the sentence in the email 29 July 2016 should have read, ‘Right now we can’t be open. Right now we will have to continue on as we are or in secret until you at least finish school’.
The 12 July 2016 email contains only the words ‘so…yeah’. JB confirmed in her evidence that the accused was teaching her songwriting and helping her to write a pop song. She said the song she wrote was called ‘traffic in my head’ and related to the confused emotions and feelings going on in her head at the time. She accepted that in July 2016 it was possible that lyrics and themes for the song she was writing was something she and the accused discussed. The attachment is entitled ‘my confused feelings’. That title accords with the subject matter of the song ‘traffic in my head’. In the absence of any other contextual emails, I am not prepared to reject the accused’s explanation for this email. I consider it to be reasonably possibly true that this email related to JB’s songwriting and was for that purpose.
Similarly, I accept the accused’s evidence that in the emails of 6 and 20 August 2016, the reference to JB being her inspiration for the song ‘live in the moment’ was a reference to JB inspiring her to write a pop song. I accept the accused’s evidence that the lyrics of that song were not about her relationship with JB. The email of 2 August 2016 with an invitation to a school musical in my view is of little probative value. The accused’s explanation that she was trying to change the trajectory of their friendship gently is plausible and I cannot reject it.
I am unable wholly to accept the accused’s evidence about the balance of the emails in P6. I am satisfied that some of her evidence regarding the emails is reasonably possibly true, but there are other aspects of her evidence which I have rejected.
The accused was challenged in cross-examination about the veracity of her assertion that there was a typographical error in the email of 29 July 2016. She was taken to surrounding text which she accepted contained no typographical errors. I accept the accused’s evidence that she did not proofread this email and that, if there had been the omission of the word ‘or’, she did not realise this at the time she sent it. This is supported by the fact that another typographical error in this email involving a missing word was also left uncorrected:
Maybe I can get to know her and see how of a good person she is like you said.
I infer and find that the missing word was ‘much’ so that the sentence should have read ‘Maybe I can get to know her and see how much of a good person she is like you said’.
I reject the suggestion that the accused has tried to explain away the implication of the impugned sentence. I accept her evidence that she intended to write ‘or’. The insertion of the word ‘or’ leads to an inference that what the accused intended to convey was that if the relationship were to change (namely, become romantic and/or sexual) it would have to be clandestine. Implicit in this is a recognition of the possibility of this occurring and therefore reflective of the state of the relationship at that time, as far as the accused perceived it.
I accept the accused’s evidence that by the time she wrote the emails in P6, JB had told her she was in love with her. Given the complete lack of judgment displayed by the accused in her dealings with JB and in permitting an unhealthy and unprofessional relationship to develop, this is unsurprising. JB was vulnerable and the accused exceedingly immature. I am satisfied that the accused did not deliberately exploit her position as a teacher to become close to JB (or BM) but her failure to maintain professional boundaries and her desire to be liked enabled this outcome.
It is a reasonable possibility that the accused had developed genuine feelings of non-sexual love for JB when JB told her she was in love with her in June 2016 and wanted to pursue a relationship. It is also a reasonable possibility that, at this time, the accused started to entertain thoughts about the prospect of a romantic relationship with JB and discussed that with her. However, at some point after this and before the emails in P6 were sent, it is a reasonable possibility that the accused became very concerned about the implications of such a relationship particularly given the increasing emotional dependence JB exhibited and her mental health struggles. In those circumstances, the accused likely realised she was trapped in a situation that could have serious consequences for her marriage and career should there be any disclosure by JB of their relationship and that her behaviour had been completely unprofessional. I accept the accused’s evidence that by July 2016 she was trying to extricate herself from the situation and saw the budding relationship between JB and SM as her escape route.
In those circumstances, I consider the professions of love in the emails in P6 to be half-truths. I accept the accused’s evidence that she was trying to appease JB by telling her what she wanted to hear and leading her towards continuing her relationship with SM and thus creating an exit path for herself. It is not beyond the human experience for a person wanting to exit a relationship without hurting the other person falsely to profess love for the person about to be rejected but blame circumstance or external forces for the decision to end the relationship: ‘it’s not you, it’s me’, ‘I really love you but I want to pursue my career’, ‘I really love you but you are too good for me’.
However, I reject the accused’s evidence that she outright lied when she told JB she loved her, would always love her and she in fact did not love or was not in love with JB. I am satisfied that there was some truth in those expressions of love, but they were not intended to be, and nor were they referable to sexual love or an admission of the existence of a sexual relationship.
It is trite to note that the evidence of a witness on one topic can be rejected but the witness’ evidence on another topic accepted. Given the infirmities in the prosecution case and my assessment of the accused as a witness of truth on other material matters in dispute, my findings regarding her credibility and reliability on are unaffected.
Conclusion
My task is not to determine whether it has been established that the accused behaved unprofessionally or whether she was or is a fit and proper person to be a teacher.
My task is to determine whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the two serious sexual offences with which she has been charged.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is an exacting standard for good reason.
A person should not be convicted on doubtful or insufficient evidence.
I have identified a number of infirmities which I am satisfied attended the evidence of JB and the evidence of SS.
I have identified the only evidence which I am satisfied is capable of independently supporting JB’s account that a sexual relationship between her and the accused existed.
Based upon my evaluation of the competing reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the emails in P6 when considered against the evidence of the accused which I have accepted as either truthful or as reasonably possibly true, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual relationship between JB and the accused ever existed.
On all of the evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused on both charges.
Verdicts
I find the accused not guilty of counts 1 and 2.