R v Ladmore - [2025] NSWDC 93

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93
Hearing dates: 10 – 14 March 2025
Date of orders: 21 March 2025
Decision date: 21 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Haesler SC
Decision:
Verdict after Judge alone trial:
Counts 3 and 7 – Not guilty.
Counts 1 and 2, Statutory Alternative Count 3, Counts 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 – Guilty.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Use child for production — Produce — Possession
CRIME — Child sex offences — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity
CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexually touch child >10 <16
CRIME — Child sex offences — Incite child >10 <16 to sexually touch
CRIME — Child sex offences — Assault with intent to have sexual intercourse with child >10 <16
CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >10 <14
CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual act towards child <14
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Time a material particular — Reasons of trial judge — Verdicts
EVIDENCE — Tendency evidence — Onus of proof — Cautions — Inferences — Circumstantial evidence — Opinion evidence — Exceptions — Expert opinion — Cellebrite analysis — Complaint
EVIDENCE — Witness evidence — Prerecorded children’s evidence — Confabulation — Accused’s evidence — Lies by accused — Distinguishing between asserted tendencies — Accessing the evidence

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229
Evans v R; Evans v R [2024] NSWCCA 245
R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158
Smith (Mudarra) v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 256 CLR 132
WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Andrew Ladmore (accused)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
D McCallum (for the accused)
R Kimbell (for the Crown)
Solicitors:
Shoalhaven Lawyers (for the accused)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/128784
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication of any information that leads to the identifying of a child witness. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.

JUDGMENT

Pseudonyms have been used for the name the complainant and other child witnesses. Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any information, picture or other material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of a child complainant or a child witness. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.

Introduction

In early 2023, Isla, then aged 10, told some school friends about a suitcase…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading R v Ladmore

Details

AGLC: R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93
Case: [2025] NSWDC 93
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the respondent, John Ladmore, was against his conviction and sentence for a range of child sexual offences. The trial judge, His Honour Judge Hall, found Ladmore guilty on ten counts related to various offences against children, including producing child abuse material, sexually touching a child, and indecently assaulting a child. Ladmore was acquitted on two counts, including charges of using a child for the production of child abuse material. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent argued that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, particularly in relation to the child victims' testimonies and the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. The appeal also questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions on several counts.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in his evaluation of the evidence, particularly the credibility of the child victims and the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. The appeal also examined whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions on the various counts. The court had to consider the weight given to the child victims' testimonies, the significance of the circumstantial evidence, and the impact of the accused's lies and admissions on the assessment of the evidence. The appeal further examined the application of the onus of proof and the appropriate standard of proof in relation to the charges. The court also considered whether the trial judge's reasons were adequate in addressing the key issues and whether the verdicts were supported by the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence or in the application of the onus of proof. The court found that the trial judge appropriately evaluated the child victims' testimonies and the circumstantial evidence, and that the verdicts were supported by the evidence. The court noted that the trial judge gave proper weight to the children's testimonies, considered the accused's lies and admissions, and correctly applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the trial judge's reasons adequately addressed the key issues and supported the verdicts. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

No orders were made as a result of the appeal. The respondent's convictions and sentences on ten counts of child sexual offences were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict after Judge alone trial:

Counts 3 and 7 – Not guilty.

Counts 1 and 2, Statutory Alternative Count 3, Counts 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 – Guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93
Hearing dates:	10 – 14 March 2025
Date of orders:	21 March 2025
Decision date:	21 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Haesler SC
Decision:	Verdict after Judge alone trial: Counts 3 and 7 – Not guilty. Counts 1 and 2, Statutory Alternative Count 3, Counts 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 – Guilty.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Use child for production — Produce — Possession CRIME — Child sex offences — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexually touch child >10 <16 CRIME — Child sex offences — Incite child >10 <16 to sexually touch CRIME — Child sex offences — Assault with intent to have sexual intercourse with child >10 <16 CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child >10 <14 CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual act towards child <14 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Time a material particular — Reasons of trial judge — Verdicts EVIDENCE — Tendency evidence — Onus of proof — Cautions — Inferences — Circumstantial evidence — Opinion evidence — Exceptions — Expert opinion — Cellebrite analysis — Complaint EVIDENCE — Witness evidence — Prerecorded children’s evidence — Confabulation — Accused’s evidence — Lies by accused — Distinguishing between asserted tendencies — Accessing the evidence
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229 Evans v R; Evans v R [2024] NSWCCA 245 R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158 Smith (Mudarra) v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650 The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 256 CLR 132 WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mark Andrew Ladmore (accused) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: D McCallum (for the accused) R Kimbell (for the Crown) Solicitors: Shoalhaven Lawyers (for the accused) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/128784
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication of any information that leads to the identifying of a child witness. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.