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 containing sex toys that belonged to a family friend and neighbour, Mark Ladmore. The story came back to Isla’s mother. Isla was questioned about the suitcase story. She then told her mother and sister that Mr Ladmore had been doing sexually inappropriate things with her.
Isla spoke to police soon after. She made a number of complaints of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards her by Mr Ladmore. The events she said commenced when she was eight years old. The subsequent police investigation led to Mr Ladmore's arrest, and the execution of crime scene warrants at his home. Items seized and images recovered from his mobile iPhone led to further charges. What was seized lent support to Isla’s allegations.
Mr Ladmore said he was not guilty of each allegation. He was committed for trial to this Court.
The evidence of child witnesses was given, tested and pre-recorded at a hearing, before the remaining aspects of the trial commenced last week at Bega District Court: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, Part 5, Division 1A.
On 10 March 2025, Mr Ladmore was arraigned on 12 Counts, 2 of which were alternates. The prosecution case ran for four days. Mr Ladmore then gave evidence denying each allegation. After submissions on 17 March 2025, I reserved to consider my judgment until today; the last day of the Bega sittings.

A judge alone trial

A person accused of a serious crime can, after receiving legal advice, waive their right to a trial by jury and elect for a trial by judge alone. Mr Ladmore made such an election. The Director of Public Prosecutions did not consent to a judge alone trial. On 7 March 2025 I granted leave to lodge the application and then allowed a defence motion that the trial proceed by judge alone: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132; see separate judgment.
As the trial was conducted without a jury I have a duty, not to just return verdicts, but also to expose clearly and, if possible, succinctly, my reasoning process. I must include in my decision fundamental propositions, principles of law and any necessary warnings or cautions that apply, and thus, operate to guide my evaluation of the evidence. I am required to summarise the crucial arguments of the parties, formulate the issues for decision and resolve all issues of law and fact that need to be determined so as to justify the verdicts reached.
A judge brings their own experience of life to evaluating the evidence. It is axiomatic that a judge, experienced in a criminal jurisdiction, may be more exposed the vagaries and variety of human sexual interactions than others who are not exposed each working week to sex crimes.
As part of my fact finding process, I am entitled to make a value judgment in respect of matters of fact adduced in evidence. Such evaluations can be based on many factors, including my life experiences as an individual in society and my training and experience as a lawyer and judge. That evaluation must be in respect of proved facts. A trial judge is not entitled to use personal experience to make findings of fact or to draw inferences, unless that personal experience satisfies the prescription for the use of matters of common knowledge set out in s 144 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). If they do, the requirements in s 144(4) must be complied with, so as to ensure a party is not unfairly prejudiced: Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229 at [68]-[69].

Counts for trial

In brief summary, the prosecution alleged Mr Ladmore acted sexually toward Isla from when she was eight years old until she complained to her mother when aged 10. It is alleged he singled her out for special treatment and cultivated her and exposed her to sexual activity. He allowed her ‘free run’ of his home so that he could, as the opportunity presented, use her for his own prurient interests. He encouraged her to stay for sleep overs [redacted]. He exposed her to sex toys and pornography. He secretly photographed her. He abused her while she slept and while she was awake.
Mr Ladmore denied any inappropriate sexual activity with Isla.
The allegations were formulated in an indictment with 10 counts and 2 alternates. Statutory alternatives to Counts 3 and 5 also had to be considered.

Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally sexually touch Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely, 10 years: Crimes Act 1900, s 66DB(a).

Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally incite Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years, to sexually touch Mark Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66DB(b).

Between 4 October 2022 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, assaulted Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years, with intent to have sexual intercourse with her: Crimes Act, s 66D.

Between 1 January 2023 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally sexually touch Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years: Crimes Act, s 66DB(a).

Between 1 January 2023 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 10 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the relevant time Isla was under the authority of Mark Andrew Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66C(2).

Between 4 October 2020 and 20 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, that, Mark Ladmore being an adult person engaged in conduct that exposed a child namely Isla, to indecent material, and provided the said Isla with financial and other material benefits, with the intention of making it easier to procure the said Isla then aged 8 to 10 years for unlawful sexual activity with Mark Ladmore: Crimes Act, s 66EB(3).

On 21 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did possess child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91H(2).

On or about 21 November 2021, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, used Isla, a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91G(1)(a).

Alternative 9 – On or about 21 November 2021, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did produce child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91H(2).

On or about 21 November 2021, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally carry out a sexual act towards Isla, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years: Crimes Act, s 66DC(a).

On or about 19 February 2022, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, used Isla, a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91G(1)(a).

Alternative 12 – On or about 19 February 2022, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did produce child abuse material: Crimes Act, s 91H(2).

If I am not satisfied of the element of Count 3 "attempted sexual intercourse" and the element of Count 5 “sexual intercourse” a statutory alternative count of sexual touching pursuant to s 66DB(a) Crimes Act is available to me.

Elements

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of an offence against the accused. With the exception of the matters noted above, so far as Counts 3 and 5 were concerned, the trial was conducted on the basis that if the prosecution case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of each count in the indictment would be satisfied. The critical issue relating to each contact offence, Counts 1 to 5, and the grooming offence, Count 6, was: Did they occur at all? So far as the remaining counts are concerned the issue was: Could the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt it was Mr Ladmore who produced the images or was aware of hem being on his iPhone?

Key terms

The Indictment has some key terms whose ordinary English or extended legal definitions must be applied. They include:

‘Assault’ – Means a deliberate act done by the accused without lawful excuse and without the consent which involves touching of another person. The slightest touch is sufficient to amount to an assault. The touching does not have to be a hostile or aggressive act or one that caused the complainant fear or pain.
‘Used’ – Has its ordinary English meaning, that is, employed for some purpose.
‘Incite’ – Means to ‘urge on’, ‘stimulate’, or ‘prompt to action’, or ‘command', ‘request’, ‘propose’, ‘advise’, ‘encourage’ or ‘authorise.’
‘Child Abuse Material’ – Means material that depicts a child engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.
‘What a reasonable person would regard as offensive’ – Requires you apply the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
‘Intent’ – Carries its ordinary meaning. Intention may be inferred or deduced from all the proved circumstances including from the conduct of a person at the time he did the specific act.
‘Sexual touching’ – Means a person touching another person in circumstances where a reasonable person would consider the touching to be sexual. Matters that can be taken into account in deciding whether a reasonable person would consider touching to be sexual include:
That the area of the body touched is the person's anal area; or
Whether the person doing the touching does so for the purpose of obtaining sexual arousal or sexual gratification; or
Whether any other aspect of the touching (including the circumstances in which it is done) make it sexual.
It for me to determine what a reasonable person would consider to be sexual – by applying the standards prevailing in our community. It is accepted here that if the events occurred as described there could only be one proper conclusion – they were sexual.
‘Sexual intercourse’ – Has an extended definition at law. Here, relevantly, it can include:
The penetration to any extent of the genitalia of the complainant by any part of the penis of the accused.
The penetration to any extent of mouth of the complainant by any part of penis of the accused.
The licking or sucking of the complainant's genitals.
‘Genitalia’ – Is a Latin term for the external female reproductive organ capable of penetration. It includes the vagina.
‘Procure’ – Means intentionally took steps to ensure something occurs; here that something is alleged to be unlawful sexual activity.
‘Unlawful sexual activity’ – Means sexual intercourse, sexual touching or a sexual act, including an act of indecency, with a child aged under 16. It is against the law to engage in any sexual activity with a child aged under 16.
‘Possession’ – The essence of the concept of sole possession in law is that, at the relevant time, a person intentionally has control over the object in question. It is not necessary they have the thing on their person before the law says that they have it in their possession. A person does not need to own something in order to possess it. You can possess something temporarily, or for some limited purpose.
‘Intentionally have control’ – The phrase ‘intentionally have control’ is designed to make it clear that if something has been, for example, slipped into your bag unknown to you, you are not regarded as having possession of it in at law, even though the bag that you are carrying could be said to be under your control. Similarly, if a person destroys or disposes of a thing, such that it does not exist or they can no longer exercise of control over it, they cannot then be in possession of it.
‘Under the authority’ – Means under the care, supervision or authority of another who has responsibility for that other person's care and control. It is not in dispute that when Isla stayed at the accused’s home, he was the responsible adult, and she was under his authority.

Critical directions

In any criminal trial the following critical directions must be applied to each count.

Onus of proof

The most important direction in any criminal trial is this: The accused has no onus of proving anything. I do not act on suspicion. I do not act on what I believe might probably be the case. I can only return a guilty verdict if I have no reasonable doubt the prosecution has proved its case, that is; each element of the offence charged. If the prosecution fails to meet that high onus or, if I have doubts about their case, Mr Ladmore must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and I must return a verdict of not guilty.
The words ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ are designed to focus attention on a reasoned and rational approach to assessing the evidence and resolving the issues in dispute.

Cautions

The evidence of the child witnesses was given initially by playing their recorded police interviews. For most, their remaining evidence was prerecorded. Some had the assistance of a witness intermediary during the prerecorded hearing. Accordingly, I note, that this is now a standard procedure, and I warn myself not to draw an inference adverse to the accused nor do I give the evidence greater or lesser weight because the evidence was given in this way or because a witness intermediary was used: Criminal Procedure Act, ss 289J, 294O.

The accused's evidence

Mr Ladmore chose not to talk to police. His exercise of his right to silence must be recognised. No adverse inference can be drawn from his exercising that important right.
He did, as is his right, give evidence at his trial. If, having considered that evidence, and the submissions of both counsel in relation to it, I accept what he says, then I must acquit him and bring in a verdicts of not guilty, because it would follow that the Prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt its case in relation to an essential matter that it must prove.
However, there is no obligation on the accused to persuade me to accept his evidence. The prosecution must satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that I should reject it as a reasonably possible version of the facts.
If his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt as to whether the prosecution has made out its case in respect of any element of a Count or any essential fact that it must prove, then I am bound, in law, to bring in a verdict of not guilty. In other words, I do not have to believe that the accused is telling me the truth before he must be acquitted.
Here there is a clear conflict between the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of the accused. When I consider each verdict, it is inevitable I will ask myself the question: Who is to be believed? It is essential however that even if I reject the accused's version that does not conclude the issues I have to determine. It would be wrong if guilt or innocence turned upon a simple choice between two inconsistent versions.
Even if I prefer the evidence for the prosecution, I cannot convict unless I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence establishes the elements of each Count to the high standard required. Even if I do not positively believe the accused's evidence, I cannot find an issue against him contrary to his evidence if that evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to that issue.
If I do not accept the accused's evidence on a critical point, or at all; that decision cannot conclude my consideration of that aspect of the evidence and the element of a count to which it relates. The prosecution gains no assistance from a rejection of any version of events given by the accused: Evans v R; Evans v R [2024] NSWCCA 245 at [144]-[145].
If I reject his evidence, I must put what he said, denying each of the offences and the key aspects of the prosecution case against him, to one side and return to an examination of the evidence I do accept. The question will remain: Have the prosecution, upon the basis of evidence that I do accept, proved the accused's guilt of a count beyond reasonable doubt?

Assessing the Evidence

The evidence must be considered as a whole. Some of the evidence was direct – some was circumstantial. Some evidence was not in dispute – some was contested.

Assessing witnesses

For most people giving evidence in a trial is not common and may be a stressful experience. Many witnesses in this trial were children. I do not jump to conclusions based solely on how a witness gives evidence. I am aware that people react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds, and have different abilities, values and life experiences. There are many variables – I must take care – the manner in which witnesses give evidence may not be the only, or even the most important, factor in my decision.

Experts

I have heard and read evidence from Ms Bonner. It is accepted that she has training and experience as a digital forensic analyst.

Normally a witness can only speak about facts – what they saw, heard and said. But an expert with specialised knowledge may express an opinion within his or her particular area of expertise. Ms Bonner’s expert evidence was admitted to provide me with scientific information and opinion which was outside the experience and knowledge of most Australians, including me.
Other unchallenged expert evidence – about DNA profiles found on a black dildo and the classification of Child Abuse Material came from the Officer in Charge, Detective Senior Constable Smart. It was led without objection.
I do not ignore my own extensive experience as a criminal lawyer, but I caution myself that experience is not the same as specialist knowledge. While technically I do not have to accept even the unchallenged evidence of an expert in this case, Ms Bonner's evidence did assist in my assessment of parts of the evidence, the facts, and some critical issues.

Assessing a complainant's evidence – General considerations

A delay in making complaint about the alleged conduct of an accused does not necessarily indicate that the allegation that the offence was committed is false. There may be good reasons why a child victim of a sexual assault may hesitate in making, or may refrain from making, a complaint. They can include fear of retribution, responses to threats, embarrassment or simply not knowing what to do.
A reasonable doubt about the truthfulness or reliability of the complainant's evidence in relation to a count or an important part of her evidence must be taken into account in assessing the truthfulness or reliability of her evidence generally; including when deciding whether or not there was a reasonable doubt about her evidence with respect to the other counts.
There is no rule of law or practice that requires a complainant's account be corroborated: Evidence Act 1995, s164.
I must avoid making assessments based on preconceived ideas about how people may respond to unlawful sexual activity.
Unlawful sexual activity can occur in many different circumstances, and between different kinds of people, including – people who know one another.
There is no typical or normal response to unlawful sexual activity. People may respond to non-consensual sexual activity in different ways. These ways can include, by freezing and not saying or doing anything,
People may not be physically injured or subjected to violence or threatened with physical injury or violence when subject to unlawful sexual activity. The absence of injury or violence, or threats of injury or violence, does not necessarily mean that a person is not telling the truth about an alleged sexual offence.
Trauma may affect people differently. This means that some people may show obvious signs of emotion or distress when giving evidence in court about an alleged sexual offence, but others may not. The presence or absence of emotion or distress does not necessarily mean that a person is not telling the truth about an alleged sexual offence.
The experience courts over many years have shown that:

People may not remember all the details of a sexual offence or may not describe a sexual offence in the same way each time; and

Trauma may affect people differently, including affecting how they recall events; and

It is common for there to be differences in accounts of a sexual offence; and

Both truthful and untruthful accounts of a sexual offence may contain differences.

I must ultimately decide whether or not any differences in the complainant’s accounts are important when I come to assessing the complainant’s truthfulness and reliability: Criminal Procedure Act 1986; s 293A.
The fact a person was present in a particular location, such as voluntarily visiting another's home, does not mean unlawful sexual activity did not occur.

Inferences

As I must be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, I should be extremely careful about drawing any inference adverse to him. This includes any inference about his state of mind. I must carefully examine all the evidence in relation to all the relevant circumstances and examine any possible inference to ensure that it is a justifiable inference. I must not draw any inferences from the direct evidence unless it is the only rational inference in the circumstances.

Circumstantial evidence

Some evidence was direct. Other evidence requires I draw inferences from proved facts. For an inference to be reasonable, it must rest upon something more than mere conjecture. A verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless proved facts and any circumstances relied on are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused: Guilt should be the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable me to draw.
The bare possibility of innocence should not prevent a judge from finding an accused guilty if the inference of guilt is the only inference it is open to draw after a reasoned consideration of all the facts in evidence.
When considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed, in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence. The evidence at trial is not to be looked at in a piecemeal fashion: The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 256 CLR 132 at [47]-[50].

Tendency direction

A tendency notice was served by the prosecution. They ask that I to consider all the facts and draw appropriate conclusions from proved facts about the accused's state of mind. It is submitted that I will find Mr Ladmore had the following tendencies:

To have a particular state of mind – a sexual interest in female children between the ages of 6 and 12 years;

To have a particular state of mind – a sexual interest in Isla; and

A tendency to act on that interest by engaging in sexual activity with Isla.

If, after considering all the evidence, including both uncharged and charged acts, I find that the alleged tendencies or tendencies have been proved I can then use any proved tendency when considering the critical question: Has a count or counts been proved beyond reasonable doubt?
If a tendency has not been proved, I put this part of the evidence aside – as an unproved act or state of mind could not have any relevance to my deliberations. Even if I accept some of the evidence said to support the alleged tendency, I do not reason the accused had this tendency – therefore he is a bad person – therefore he must have committed a specific offence, or offences charged.
The evidence said to support the alleged tendencies includes each act alleged in a count, uncharged acts and other behaviour attributed to the accused falling short of a crime. I must take care not to substitute a finding there was a tendency for proof of guilt of a count. I must take care not to substitute evidence about uncharged acts for proof of matters the subject of a count.

Complaint evidence

The prosecution rely upon what the complainant said after having been, as she said, subject to inappropriate sexual behaviour by the accused, as further evidence that what is alleged did occur.
There is no doubt the complaints to her mother and sister were made but the question I must ask is: Does it support the prosecution case because it makes her evidence more believable because there is a consistency between the complainant's conduct and the allegation she makes against the accused? Further, I can use what she said about the accused's conduct toward her as some evidence of the truth of what she said – that is, as evidence that the accused did sexually assault her in the way she alleges he did.
Of course, the fact that a person says something on more than one occasion does not mean that what is said is necessarily true or accurate. A false or inaccurate statement does not become more reliable just because it is repeated on one or more occasions.
I need to consider the complaints in context, noting what was said to whom, when the complaints were made and how the complainant behaved and appeared as those complaints were made.

The evidence at trial

The evidence at trial fell into a number of distinct categories:

Objectively established facts that are not in dispute.

Direct evidence from the complainant.

Evidence of complaint.

Expert evidence about recovering the contents of the iPhone and accessing mobile iPhone data.

Evidence of, and from, recovered images found on the accused's iPhone.

Inferences drawn from proved facts.

Not in serious dispute

Mark Ladmore was born in 1980. He lived and worked in a town in coastal NSW as an air conditioner installer. He lived with his family until he and his wife separated in June 2022. After that his children stayed with him week about. The complainant's family were close friends and lived five doors down.
Isla was born in 2012. The families would spend time together. Their children would regularly move between both homes. Isla would regularly sleep over at Mr Ladmore's home. [Redacted]. On occasions she would return to her own home during the night. This arrangement continued after Mr Ladmore's wife left the home.
Mr Ladmore would buy gifts for Isla and his own children. Isla’s parent's accused him of “spoiling” her. Neither parent had any indication or inkling of anything inappropriate occurring between Mr Ladmore and Isla, until Isla’s revelations on 18 April 2023. Until that time, Mr Ladmore had the complete trust of the complainant's family.
On 18 April 2023, the complainant's mother received information from another mother that caused her to ask Isla a question about a brown suitcase at the accused's home. Isla then made a complaint. Two days later Isla had her first police Child Interview. The interviews were played at trial. A Child Interview Transcript (CIT) was available.
Mr Lamore was arrested and charged after he voluntarily attended his local police station on 21 April 2023.
Mr Ladmore's iPhone was seized. It was not password protected. A forensic "Cellebrite" examination of that iPhone found evidence of deleted files indicating child abuse material had been downloaded on it. Ms Bonner examined data relating to seven files which were recovered showing deleted images:

Two of naked children in a bath;

One of the area from which the bath photos were taken;

One of an adult hand exposing the buttocks of a sleeping child;

Two of a sleeping child; and

Another video file remnant of the same child with what appeared to be the tip of a penis and ejaculate on the child's cheek.

Over 200 other deleted images were also recovered after Cellebrite examination. Many of these images were child abuse material that had been on the iPhone but deleted at some point.
A search of Mr Ladmore’s home found a locked suitcase containing sex toys, including a black and purple dildo and two partial rubber female torsos.
A walk-though video showed the layout of Mr Ladmore's home including; the main bedroom, the loungeroom, the bathroom, and a child's room with an elevated pink bed: Exhibit K.

Evidence summary

Isla’s evidence came from her broad ranging police interview. The police interviewer, Detective Smart, sought to narrow the focus to three specific incidents. A number of generalised allegations were also made. That evidence was tested in the prerecorded proceeding. Isla did not resile from her complaints.
Isla said that from when she was eight years old Mr Ladmore behaved in a "sexually inappropriate" way with her when she visited his home. She said she slept over regularly up until a month before her April 2023 revelations.
She recalled three specific incidents all of which occurred after her tenth birthday. They were referred to at trial as ‘contact offence allegations’; the ‘movie in bed incident’ (Counts 1 and 2); the ‘piggyback incident’ (Count 3); and the ‘pink bed- black dildo incident’ (Counts 4 and 5).
Count 6, was described as a ‘grooming offence’. Its proof relied on what Isla said, observations by family members and inferences drawn from items recovered during the police investigation.
The evidence said to support Count 7 were files recovered from the accused's iPhone that contained images of what was accepted to be child abuse material that had been available as images on that iPhone. The material was recovered using the forensic software Physical Analyser by the Cellebrite company (‘Cellebrite analysis’).
That software is not, I was told, generally available. It is used by NSW police to extract forensic data for subsequent examination. Detective Senior Constable Smart and Detective Sergeant Robertson, both of whom have certificates in child abuse material classification, examined the data.
Rather than tender the images recovered, a table was prepared summarising and describing their content: Exhibit T. Before trial, defence lawyers and the accused were given the opportunity to view the material and verify the summary was accurate. Exhibit T was admitted with only one minor objection. Although some descriptions say they depict the complainant, I limited the extent of the tender pursuant to s 135 Evidence Act 1995. That conclusion was for ultimately me to make, not the detectives: Smith (Mudarra) v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650 at [13]; see separate judgment.
Exhibit T has details about:

The "size" of the file in bytes;

The "path" for the recovered "thumbnails …/5005.jpg";

The "meta date", which sets out when the file was created accessed and modified and the extraction pixel resolution;

A "description" of the image; and

The “category” of Child Abuse Material depicted as assigned by the expert detectives.

I was not provided with a formal document setting out the classification summary. Detective Smart told me that – items in Category 1 showed real children engaged in sexual acts. Category 2 involved children up to 16 in sexual poses and anime or other cartoons. Category 3 refers to images that have some intelligence value.
The table has 244 images. There are 33 Category 1 images, 108 are in Category 2 and 1 in Category 3. They included the images that formed the basis for Counts 8 to 12.
Ms Bonner did not examine the bulk of the images in Exhibit T. She was asked to comment on them as they had the same "path" as the seven images, the subject of her reports: Exhibits G, H and M (unredacted and sealed version of Ex G).
She concluded that the items had been deleted from the iPhone and that there was no way an ordinary user could thereafter access the images as special software such as Cellebrite analyser was required.
Mr Crown opened Count 7 on the basis the accused could be shown to be in possession of the items, as they were on his iPhone when it was seized on 21 April 2023. The trial was conducted on that basis. I was asked to draw the inference that Mr Ladmore downloaded, and then deleted, the material. And, that he did so for his own prurient purposes; a matter, which if accepted, would also go to proof of the first alleged tendency.
Mr Crown also asked that I draw an inference that the accused deliberately failed to bring the iPhone with him when he attended the police station to be interviewed and arrested. He submitted that Mr Ladmore omitted to bring it with him because knew that its contents would implicate him. I cannot draw that inference for two reasons. Firstly, because on being asked for his iPhone the accused immediately volunteered where it was and how it could be recovered. Secondly, if he was, as the Crown suggest, responsible for downloading the material he would have known it had already been deleted.
Counts 8 to 12 depend on a conclusion being drawn that it was the accused who created the original images later revealed following the Cellebrite analysis of his iPhone. Count 8 related to an image of a sleeping child with what appeared to be ejaculate on her cheek: Exhibit M. Count 10 was founded on the sexual act that led to the ejaculate being deposited. Count 11 related to images recovered from the iPhone of a naked child or children in a bath: Exhibit M. And a corresponding text from the accused to the complainant's mother telling her the children were in the bath: Exhibit C.
I was also provided with video and digital evidence of a police officer's attempt to re-create how the images were taken from the roof cavity of the accused home: Exhibits N, O and P.
Although Alternative Counts 9 and 12 were left for my determination as the evidence fell at trial, neither counsel addressed on those alternatives.
A search of the accused’s premise recovered a locked suitcase. The accused gave Sergeant Robinson the lock's code. In the suitcase were: a purple dildo, a black dildo, and other sex toys, including a small rubber torso with, prominent breasts and genital and anal openings, and a smaller but similar rubber object. The torsos were not relied on as founding any tendency alleged, and I do not treat it that way: see Tendency Notice.
Semen and a DNA matching profile voluntarily provided by the accused was found on the black dildo: Exhibit Q.

In serious dispute

The following matters were placed in serious dispute:

Whether any act alleged in Courts 1 to 5 occurred.

Whether Mr Ladmore's behaviour toward Isla involved grooming her for sexual activity: Count 6.

Whether the accused was involved in, or in fact aware of, the child abuse material and other images recovered from his iPhone.

Whether he had child abuse material in his possession on 21 April 2023: Count 7.

Whether Mr Ladmore had any of the alleged tendencies.

The complaint evidence

Isla said she had told Lucy about what had been done to her: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 48. Lucy said Isla told her in 2022 that she was “touched and badly harassed” by Mark: Lucy ’s CIT Q&A 33 and 34. Her friend Grace said she was told “Mark did something to her”: Grace’s CIT Q&A 51. She could not say when this occurred.
While I accept something must have been said by Isla to her friends, this aspect of the evidence carried little weight as when things were said were not able to be dated reliably.
Isla’s mother asked Isla about the suitcase. Isla told her it had “sex toys” in it. She broke down, and was distressed, scared and frightened. She wrapped herself into a ball and was crying.
Isla told her mother that since she was eight years old Mark (Ladmore) had been touching her inappropriately. Isla’s mother asked, “did he make you do anything down there”, indicating her vaginal area. Isla said, “he made me suck his cock when it was hard” and “pull” it. She said, “he told me not to say anything as he'd go to gaol [redacted]”.
She said Isla said Mark had shown her the contents of the brown suitcase that had "fake penises” in it. She told her mother there was “a pink one a purple one and a back one”. There was also a “body with no arms or legs”.
Isla told her mother she was made to pull and suck his cock when it was hard. Over the next two days Isla’s mother noted down what Isla said had occurred at the Ladmore home. She noted complaints that:

Isla had woken to find a "black doodle" in her groin;

She woke to finding him pulling her pants down and with his tongue on her vagina;

She said that she was shown the “Pornhub” site on his laptop, and the “Omegle” chat site;

That he kissed her on the lips;

That she found “white stuff” on her underpants;

That she woke one night to find him behind her on the mattress;

That he had come into the bathroom while she and another child [redacted] were in the shower by unlocking the door with a knife; and

That he had asked her to shower with him.

Isla’s mother said she was told Mark had taken a video of her “sucking his cock”. And, that Isla had looked for it on his iPhone but couldn't find it. She also said Isla told her Mark was trying to do something with her vagina and “it didn't fit”.

Isla’s older sister spoke to her later that day. She was told that Mark had been “touching her inappropriately for two to three years”. She asked where and was told on her “wanny”. She said Isla told her:

She was touched there by his fingers and a fake black penis.

She was told his tongue was down there and that he had made her suck his penis and taken a video of it.

She had seen in the brown suitcase with the "body without arms or legs" in it.

Expert evidence

Jacqueline Bonner is a digital forensic analyst with the NSW South Wales Police force. She processed and examined data stored on the accused's mobile iPhone using forensic software physical analyser produced by the Cellebrite firm. She then examined the forensic data extraction from that iPhone. In particular she examined seven files recovered from the iPhone.
A table containing seven images was set out in her report: Exhibit G (redacted of child abuse material); Exhibit K (unredacted, with the images enlarged). These images were the subject of her evidence.
She noted that a file can be identified by its “hash value”. A ‘hash value’ is a string of numbers generated to give each file a unique identity. In file “5005.jpg" she found “thumbnails”, that is, miniature representations of images accessible within the Apple iPhones application. ‘Thumbnails’ mean that data previously on the iPhone had been stored within Apple's iCloud.
In the ordinary use of an iPhone, the original image may be stored on the iPhone itself or no longer be stored on the device, with only the ‘thumbnail’ viewable on the Apple photos application. A user opening their iPhone picture application will see a series of small images arranged as ‘tiles’. The original image is viewable by clicking on the tile. The original image can then be viewed if it is stored on the iPhone or downloaded from the iCloud and viewed on the iPhone.
The data available from the Cellebrite analysis can show when the image was created or modified.
She concluded in her first report (Exhibit G at [23]) the original image which created the ‘thumbnails’ were not located on the device. She said the entries relating to the original images exist within the “photos.sqlite” database. A ‘photos.sqlite’ database file exists on such devices and tracks the metadata of photos found within the application. If a photo exists on the device, or within the iCloud, information relating to the file is present within this database.
She confirmed in evidence that when a photo is permanently deleted by a user, whether through the iCloud application or through the photos application, then the entry pertaining to the photo is no longer available to the user within the database file.
However, the existence of the thumbnails and the corresponding missing file entries in the database indicate that the original image files existed at some point on the device or its iCloud account.
If they have been deleted and removed, an expert, with her skills and training, can look at timestamps relating to where the original file was expected to be recorded in the database and existing files. By what is referred to as ‘gap analysis’ she was able to find a range of times – being the earliest expected date of the original file existing on the device up to the creation of the thumbnail. The expected creation date of the original files of interest on the device or in the user's iCloud account occurred in the time range indicated.
So far as the jpg image of the child said to be Isla asleep in bed with ejaculate on her face (Image 7 – Counts 8 and 10) the thumbnail was created on 20 November 2021 at 2:39AM. The possible date range for the original image ranged from 20 November 2021 at 14:29PM to 2:39AM on the 21 November 2021.
For the image of the child’s buttocks with the underwear being pulled down (Image 3 – Count 11). The jpg creation time was 19 February 2022 at 02:37AM. The possible date range for the original image ranged from 18 February 2022 at 9:56AM to 19 February at 10:26AM.
For the first image of the child in the bath (Image 1 – Count 11) the jpg creation date was the 19 February 2022 at 10:28AM. For the other image of a child in a bath (Image 3 – Count 11) it is 19 February 2022 at 10:26AM. The possible date range for both original images ranged from 18 February 2022 at 9:56AM to 19 February at 10:26AM: Exhibit G at [30].
She concluded (Exhibit G at [30]) that the original photos to which the thumbnails she was able to recover using the Cellebrite physical analyser program available to her through NSW police existed on the device or within the iCloud registered on the device prior to the forensic examination.
However, she said the original images, which the thumbnails relate to, did not currently exist on the device (Mr Ladmore's iPhone). She said it is also likely given the missing entries within the photos file that the original photos no longer exist and thus were not accessible in the iCloud account.
She was also asked in cross-examination by Mr McCallum, counsel for Mr Ladmore, to consider the other Cellebrite data set out in Exhibit T. She noted these recovered images had the same path as those she had analysed; the images said to found Count 7. She concluded, as she had for the seven images examined and detailed in her reports, that it is also likely given the missing entries within the photos file, that the original images, the subject of Exhibit T, no longer exist, and thus were not accessible in the accused's iPhone's iCloud account.

Submissions

Both counsel were in agreement about a number of matters that were not put in dispute. The focus of their submissions was on what was very much in dispute – the occurrence of the physical touching allegations and whether Mr Ladmore could be held criminally responsible for the images found on his iPhone. Mr Kimbell, Crown Prosecutor for the Director of Public Prosecutions, spoke to the Crown case and why I would reject Mr Ladmore as a witness of truth but rather accept what Isla told the Court.
Mr McCallum took me through the evidence and asked for my particular attention be given to Isla’s accounts, which he submitted contained irreconcilable inconsistencies and were too implausible to be true.
He asked that close consideration be given to other reasonable hypotheses that might explain aspects of the evidence. Both counsel supplemented their oral submissions with ‘dot point’ summaries, which were succinct and helpful. I have sought to address their submissions and resolve each issue in dispute. I am grateful to them. I hope this judgment does justice to them. I do not intend to explicitly refer to each of the matters raised but I have considered and addressed their submissions in coming to my determinations as to the appropriate verdict in each matter.

Consideration

Reaching a judgment requires a conclusion be drawn after considering all of the evidence and any inferences available from that evidence. Care has been taken not to attribute causality when there is simple correlation or a potential coincidence. Any conclusion reached must be logical and rational and supported by evidence, with proper regard to the onus of proof, which remains throughout on the prosecution.
A case such as this automatically leads to speculation: Why a false complaint might be made? Why an adult would do what is alleged and hazard the risk of discovery?
A criminal trial does not involve a choice between competing versions of events. Nor does it involve speculating about why a complaint might be made and placing some onus on an accused to raise reasons why a false complaint was made. The onus of proof does not shift.
Speculation must be avoided. Similarly, reasoning based on preconceived notions about how people behave, or stereotypes, should be avoided. I must focus on a calm, reasoned logical and rational analysis of proved facts and inferences properly drawn from proved facts. That analysis must not be confined by a premise that individuals always act calmy, rationally or honestly. The human condition is too complex for such assumptions.

Confabulation?

Confabulation occurs when a person, who is asked to remember and describe the details of a past event, rather than saying they do not know, fills in the gaps in their memory with a confected account.
Examples of possible dissembling or confabulation can be found in the evidence about a visit to the accused’s home shortly before the disclosure.
It is not in dispute that Isla and two school friends, Grace and Lucy, went to the accused’s home in April 2024. There they played on gym equipment. The accused was present. Another child witness said that soon after she was told by Isla, Lucy and Grace that the girls had seen sex toys in a suitcase at Mark's home. She passed this information on to her mother who then spoke to Isla’s mother; resulting in her questioning Isla.
Isla said that she saw the suitcase in the garage during the visit, but she could not recall if it was open. She had no recall of talking about the suitcase that day to her friends: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 54 and 56.
Grace said that Isla had told her about the suitcase and the sex toys, but she did not see the suitcase or the sex toys.
Lucy said that she saw the suitcase in the garage, and it was open and there were sex toys in it and an instruction sheet about sex.
These accounts cannot sit together.
Each child witness was tested but stuck to their accounts. Each account was superficially plausible, although Lucy was not as convincing as the other girls.
There are not rules or verities about child witnesses. Children, like all witnesses can give accurate or reliable accounts of events. A child, as with any witnesses, can exaggerate or get things wrong. Witnesses can be told something and then confabulate and say that they witnessed what they never in fact saw. Witnesses can tell lies, for many often inexplicable or undisclosed reasons.
I can comfortably conclude that Lucy did not see an open suitcase in the accused's garage. I can also comfortably conclude that Isla told her friends about the suitcase because she had seen it. She was able to describe it and its contents in detail when she complained to her mother.
Grace said that during the visit Isla said to Mark, “What's in the suitcase Mark?” The accused in his evidence said this was said. Isla had no recall of this being said. I accept that the comment was made.
The defence submit that this comment shows Isla was neither upset nor traumatised by being abused with a black dildo. But rather, was teasing the accused because she had seen the contents of the suitcase while “snooping” through his belongings.
The defence also submit that I would find it hard to accept that she followed him into his bedroom and slapped him before walking home. It was submitted that a 10 year old who behaved so confidently would not be cowed by threats and would be expected would have told her parents if she had been improperly touched.
What Isla said was neither implausible nor unbelievable. However, when retelling how she reacted to the accused's touching her she said she had kicked and hit out at him, “as hard as [she] could”.
And she said, after the pink bed / black dildo incident she “smacked him” when he was hiding under the bed and then she followed him into his bedroom and “smacked him” again: Isla’s CIT Q&A 70-71 and 368. A question arises: Was her evidence hyperbole, confabulation, or a lie?
What Isla described was neither implausible nor unbelievable. The ‘relationship’ she described in evidence was not that of an adult and a child. The accused was, on her account, treating her as a sexual object. He was at the same time buying her gifts and giving her attention – what the prosecution characterises as ‘grooming’ her.
Her actions and reactions toward him were noted by others – she would “talk back”, be "cranky" toward him.
It would appear that in retelling she has given herself a heroine's role, portraying herself as someone who fought back. She may have but it could also have been childish imaginings. It is submitted that there was embellishment, and it damaged fatally her credibility and believability.
Obviously, if she did embellish her credibility is undermined but it does not mean I reject her evidence. The question remains: Can I reject her evidence about how she reacted to the abuse while accepting beyond reasonable doubt that the abusive acts occurred?
The testimony from Isla’s mother lends support to her version. Misla’s mother noted how Isla would behave towards the accused. For example, if he brought her home complaining that she had a “pain in her tummy", he would say, “I've poked the bear", to indicate she was cranky.
Her father also noted that Isla could be "cranky" and "nasty" in her speech toward the accused. Her father spoke of her "attitude" towards him. Both parents believe that the accused treated Isla as a favourite [redacted]. They said that he "spoiled" her and that she liked being spoiled. In cross examination both acknowledged that it was only after the complaints were made that they attached any significance to these things.

Isla’s evidence

Isla said that she had stolen Mark's iPhone and seen on it photos of herself naked: Isla’s CIT Q&A 182. She said that she did on one occasion “spy” on him while he was in his bedroom: Isla’s CIT Q&A 348. And that she had seen him on his bed with a sex toy: Isla’s CIT Q&A 194. She said she was aware another child [redacted] had seen the suitcase: Isla’s CIT Q&A 162.
I note that an accused in Mr Ladmore’s position has considerable difficulties in testing testimony by a child about events said to have occurred years before. He had to go back into his own memory to recall, and then provide information, to his counsel so that issues that might go to Isla’s credit and credibility could be tested.
Isla’s evidence was that for three years Mr Ladmore had behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner and did “weird” things toward her. Some of those allegations were specific; some very general. With one exception (Count 11) no precise dates could be given.
In evidence, her language and behaviour were consistent with what one would expect of a 10 and 11 year old. Some of the things she described were objectively verifiable; such as the black sex toy and the suitcase with the sex toys and sex dolls in it.
During cross-examination she requested breaks. I could not help but notice that those breaks were more often than not requested when confronted with apparent contradictions between her versions of events.
She did concede to “snooping” and “spying” on the accused.
She told interviewing police that she “kicked out” and “hit” the accused. It is submitted that she was exaggerating and confabulating. However, what she said to her mother and sister was consistent in overall terms with what she said in evidence. And the fundamental things she described did not change. Apart from her descriptions of how she hit or kicked out at the accused she did not embellish.
She did have the run of his house. He allowed her to stay there regularly. I can only find he wanted her in his house. I cannot accept his assertion she was banned from sleeping over and did not do so in 2023. Her relationship with the other child [redacted] was unusual [redacted], but nothing turns on this.
In answer to questions, and through his counsel in submissions, it was said and submitted by the accused that what was alleged was too “brazen” to be true. It was submitted that given the risk of discovery and the presence of another child or children [redacted]. But brazen behaviour is not unheard of. An offender may be confident his denials will be believed and his word accepted over that of a child. To offend against a child carries a risk. That is why threats are made. An offender who behaves in a sexually inappropriate manner toward a child must take risk of discovery or exposure when he does so, but the fact there was a risk of discovery does not mean the events did not occur. It does however mean what is alleged requires careful scrutiny.
Mr Ladmore treated Isla with considerable familiarity. She reciprocated in kind. Some of the things he accepts she said and did, speak to the type of relationship they had; that was not a relationship a friendly adult would ordinarily have with a child.
I must be alive to the possibility that when attempting to recall events a witness can honestly believe what occurred is correct but be completely wrong in that belief. Isla told police a lie “can be a good thing in cases but also bad”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 25. I have to be awake to the possibility she told a lie. I have to be awake to the possibility that her recollection is inaccurate even though she now believes it to be true. I have to be awake to the possibility she exaggerated in her descriptions of what occurred.
Mr McCallum, in detailed submissions, submitted that that what she described was inherently implausible or unbelievable. I will come to consider those submissions shortly. But sadly, there is nothing implausible or unbelievable in a child being abused in the manner described by Isla.
I believe Isla and accept that she did hit out and kick at him after he did things to her, but she may have exaggerated her own capacity, as a child would. I believe her when she says she spoke to the accused in a way a child would not speak or act towards an adult generally. Those actions and words are consistent with the type of relationship the accused had fostered with her.
Although I conclude I can accept Isla as a truthful witness I have still have to ask: What acts are proved by her accounts?
I must reason from what's known, proved and can be accepted. Her testimony was tested and what inconsistencies did occur are explicable and reflect matters that commonly occur and form the basis for the standard direction in s 293A Criminal Procedure Act. She did not use the same words an adult would, but she was, and is, a child.
Isla did not lie. I have, after close review of all her evidence, have no doubt in accepting that her evidence. And that evidence establishes that each of the events happened. That said, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than a choice between competing versions of events. Each accusation requires careful scrutiny before I could conclude that Counts 1 to 5 are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused's evidence

Mr Ladmore said that he treated Isla as he did his own children. He said he regularly bought them each presents but only spent $10 at a time. He said he took them to the movies and other events and treated them equally. He accepted that Isla spent a lot of time at his home. His memory, however, is that the sleepovers stopped before Isla’s 10th birthday.
He volunteered that Isla’s father had told him she wishes “you were her dad”. His case is that she was no more special to him than any other child and that there was nothing unusual in her having access to his home. He denied any sexual contact with her. He denied any obsession with her or any sexual touching or inappropriate sexual touching. He said these things and what is alleged “never” happened.
After Mr Ladmore's arrest he bought a new car. He then purchased personalised number plates for it. The first three letters matched Isla’s initials. The next three were “DVL”: Exhibit W.
In cross-examination Mr Ladmore was shown photographs of his vehicle with the new number plates. Mr Crown put to him that showed he was obsessed with Isla. Mr Ladmore would not accept this proposition. He insisted the initials on the new personalised number plates represented his favourite car; despite his new car not being of that make or model.

Mr Ladmore lied to the Court. It is possible he wanted to avoid the admission inherent in giving an affirmative answer to Mr Crown’s question, but the lie on oath damaged his credibility. This lie cannot be taken as an affirmation of Mr Crown's initial proposition. It has no evidential weight but the lie and his post arrest, and very public assertion, that the complainant, as represented by her initials, was a DVL, showed considerable naivety and immaturity and arrogance. It also showed a gross insensitivity to the complainant and her family. It damaged his credibility.
I must take care not to attribute to the accused the power of hindsight. I must make full allowance for the stresses of giving evidence and trying to recall with precision events, that in his case, had no particular consequence as nothing of moment happened.
That said some aspects of his evidence made no sense to me. One topic in particular, the brown suitcase, is illustrative.
Mrs Ladmore told me that she did have a purple sex toy stored on a high shelf in the walk-in robe. She gave no evidence about knowing children had had access to it. Isla said she had had seen that toy in the wardrobe.
Mr Ladmore told me he that he caught Isla using this toy on herself in a sexual manner. He said she “broke down” and made him promise not to tell her mother. He said he would not tell her mother, if she promised in turn not to use it again. He said after this he put the toy in the suitcase. He said that he put a lock on it, although he did not say specifically when in sequence of events the lock went on. He said he forgot about the suitcase but later found Isla with it again. He said that again, he did not tell her parents.
He said he had then put the locked suitcase in his garage under a blue tarp with a bag of cement on it. He later recovered the case and put it in his walk-in wardrobe, where it remained until found by police. He did so because he used the toys with women who had come to spend time with him.
He said that he purchased most of the toys after his wife left the home. He had great trouble saying when he had done so. In answer to a question from me he said he purchased them “online … toward the end of the year” (2022). But immediately after when Mr Crown re-examined him, about the date he said, "I couldn't tell you”.
He said he had never told Isla the lock’s code or shown her the contents of the suitcase.
It is uncontroversial that Isla was able to describe the contents of the suitcase to her mother. And that description includes not just the purple toy, but the pink dildo, the black dildo and the rubber torso. Isla could not have described the contents unless she had access to the suitcase. She said, “I wish he’d never showed me”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 159. She described opening the suitcase and seeing what was in it: Isla’s CIT Q&A 161-165. What she said was not entirely clear particularly as she used the term “we” in a way that could have referred to other children or Mr Ladmore. The ambiguity was not cleared up in the prerecord hearing.
In the prerecord she said she knew the lock’s code because she saw him opening the suitcase. She said she did not tell the police Mark caught her opening the suitcase: Tcpt, 26 September 2024, pp 52 and 53.
Mr Ladmore said he locked the suitcase, and that Isla did not have access to the lock’s code. She told police about a code, but the number she mentioned was not the one the accused gave Sergeant Robinson: Isla’s CIT Q & A 343-347. She could not have guessed the code. The code, if she did in fact know it, could only have been given to her by the accused.
She then said that he opened it in front of her and she asked the accused, “Why do you do this stuff?”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 346.
Mr Ladmore's evidence was ambiguous as to when the lock was put on the suitcase. After the toys were placed in it, or after he caught her in the walk-in robe with it? He says he did not show her the contents and he did not see her looking in the suitcase, although he presumes, she did.
As Isla accurately described the contents of the suitcase she must have seen inside it. As she describes accurately the rubber torso and the “bum” found in it by police, she must have seen them in the suitcase: Isla’s CIT Q&A 343. While the accused could not say when the torsos had been purchased, it was some time after June 2022 and after, I find, he locked and hid the suitcase. Isla’s evidence is powerfully corroborated, and the accused's evidence is significantly diminished as a consequence.
Mr Ladmore said a number of things about Isla’s behaviour in his home that, if accepted, did not reflect well on her. He said she had gone through his wallet and stole coins from his car. He said she stole lollies, and he had to hide them from her. He said that Isla wanted more money to put away for a forthcoming trip to Bali. He said she used offensive language in his presence but not toward him. He said she was “fighty” and “fiery” three to four times a week “depending on her mood”. He said Isla had used a knife to open his door while he was in the shower. He said that a friend had caught Isla showing the friend's children the Omegle chat site, which Isla had apparently said was a "paedo site".
I accept that an innocent accused would search for reasons in the character of his accuser for the making of false allegations but his repeated attempts to blacken the character of a child who he repeatedly welcomed back into his home do him no credit at all. If Isla had behaved as he said, he as a responsible adult and close friend of her parent's would have raised these matters with them. He did not. Rather, he treated Isla as someone he could negotiate and bargain with and allowed him to treat him in adult way. Lending support to the prosecution submission that he was grooming her.
Another illustrative aspect of the evidence involved his absolute refusal to acknowledge possession of the images recovered from his iPhone, including the images taken from a roof space were of his home, despite the timeline and his own text message that the Isla was in the bath. His inability to concede the obvious, did him no credit. He lied to the Court. He took known facts and put a twist on them that I could not accept as they defied logic.
Mr Ladmore was a singularly unimpressive witness. I did not believe him. My rejection of his account cannot conclude the matter. My rejection of his evidence adds nothing to the prosecution case. Each allegation must be scrutinised to see if the prosecution has proved its case to the high standard required based on the evidence I do accept and inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence.

Consideration

Count 7

Exhibit T contains child abuse material that was recovered from the accused’s iPhone. The evidence of Ms Bonner establishes that the material existed on the iPhone at some point in time.
If the files were accessible to the user on the 21 April 2023, the images would have appeared in the iPhone's "pictures application" viewable as tiles and accessible, either from the device or the iCloud, by clicking on that tile.
Detective Smart inspected the iPhone on the 21 April 2023. He saw none of the material now set out in Exhibit T.
The evidence establishes that someone had deleted the child abuse material after its creation and before 21 April 2023. I do not know when that deletion occurred as the data was not made available to me. Accordingly, I must be careful to draw no inference against the accused that might be construed as an act done in consciousness or guilt, after he was notified, that police wished to speak to him.
Ms Bonner's evidence (summarised above) is that a once deleted the file cannot be recovered by the user. The Cellebrite forensic software allows for material such as that set out in Exhibit T to be extracted. If a person who had an item disposes of it such that they cannot recover it, with the intention they cannot ever recover it, possession after the date of deletion cannot be proved.
Exhibit T established beyond reasonable doubt that after the creation date the images containing child abuse material were on the accused’s iPhone for a period. Given it was his iPhone, and given the nature of the material, there is a strong inference he was knowingly in possession of it.
There is evidence Isla had access to his iPhone as she says she saw things on it: Isla’s CIT Q&A 182. A Cellebrite analysis of her iPhone shows that that iPhone accessed Pornhub in April 2023, before her revelation: Exhibit 1. There is no evidence that she downloaded or accessed the material the subject of Exhibit T. While there is a possibility someone else, other than the accused, was responsible for the download, that he was unaware of this and did not knowingly have the material in his possession at some stage is fanciful.
That said I must still carefully review Mr McCallum’s submission that the prosecution could not prove possession at the date set out in Count 7.
After the evidence closed on Friday afternoon, I discussed proposed directions with the parties. I raised an issue about the date in Count 7. When we resumed on Monday morning Mr Crown made an application to amend the dates in Count 7 to cover the period that Mr Ladmore was said to be in possession of the child abuse material to: "On or about 15 November 2021 until 21 April 2023…". I refused the application: see separate judgment.
In short, if the time the accused was said to be in possession of the images summarised in Exhibit T was not material to, or of the essence, an amendment to Count 7 was not necessary: WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58; R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158. There was no need to invoke the broad statutory power given to courts to amend indictments in s 21 Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
If, however, as Mr McCallum submitted, the date was material, close consideration had to be given to whether the date was a constituent element of the charges or only a particular: WGC at [136] (Hayne and Heydon JJ). I accept his submission, he had prepared for and conducted his trial on Count 7 on the basis that possession was alleged on 21 April 2023, as this in how the prosecution had opened their case.
I pointed out that Exhibit T was part of the prosecution particulars in the tendency notice, and thus the contents of it had broader application to the Crown case than Count 7. Mr McCallum responded; his focus had been on Count 7 and that he had cross-examined Ms Bonner and Detective Smart based on that assumption. He had made important forensic decisions, particularly in regard to what he asked of those witnesses.
Mr Crown replied that, while it may be good practice to frame a count in an indictment so as to clearly identify for the accused the charges with which he needs to deal, the general rule is that the date of an offence is not a material particular and need not be proven: WGC at [155] (Crennan J).
I held that the exceptions to the general rule applied here as the conduct of the trial on Count 7 had the effect of rendering a date a material particular. Both the prosecution and the defence had, until the issue was raised after the evidence had concluded, conducted the trial on Count 7 by treating the date as material. While here the date did not relate to the complainant's age or alibi, issues of procedural fairness to the defence are of considerable importance to that decision: WGC at [158] (Crennan J). The defence came to meet a specific case, I would not allow the prosecution to change date once their case had closed.
Mr Ladmore had possession of his iPhone on 21 April 2023 and at the time the images were downloaded on it. While it is probable he was in possession of the child abuse material recovered by the Cellebrite analysis prior to 21 April 2023, he had no access to that material and was not in possession of it on 21 April 2023. He must be found not guilty of Count 7.

Tendency finding

The prosecution asserted Mr Ladmore had a particular state of mind – a sexual interest in female children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. My findings in relation to the child abuse material described in Exhibit T (other than those he is said to have produced himself) mean he must have the full benefit of this acquittal. There is no other evidence of any general interest in female children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. No other child abuse material was found by police. His interest was very specific and directed at Isla. The evidence at trial cannot establish the first tendency asserted. I have not had any regard to it when I consider the remaining counts.

Counts 8 to 12

On 18 February 2022, Isla spent the night at the accused's home. The next day, 19 February 2022, he took her and other children to a motocross event. Before the trip Isla and another child had a bath. At 10:36AM he responded to a text message from Isla’s mother asking that she be sent home with “they're in the bath”: Exhibit C.
Photo files retrieved from the accused’s iPhone (Exhibits G and M) reveal three images whose jpg’s were created at; 10:26AM, 10:27AM; and 10:28AM on 19 February 2022. The first image shows what could be fingers touching a fluffy object. The next two show a naked child or children in a bath. The main image could be Islaas it is her size and shape. The images are taken from the ceiling cavity through a light fitting. To allow the image to be taken a light bulb would have to have been removed.
During a subsequent police investigation, police sought to recreate the circumstances in which these images were created. The results show the bath and tiles. They cannot be differentiated from the images recovered from the accused’s iPhone.
The accused is an air conditioner installer. He is familiar with roof cavities. He denied ever having been inside the roof cavity of his rented home. He denied taking the images. He denied any knowledge of them. He said he did not know how they got onto his iPhone. He did not delete them.
I could not believe him.
Another image recovered from the accused's iPhone showed a hand holding the buttocks of a child with her underwear moved. The image was created on 19 February 2022 at 2:37AM (Exhibits G and M). The child was wearing a brand and pattern of underwear often worn by Isla: Exhibit F. Next to the child was a pink blanket. A similar blanket was used as children's bedding in the Ladmore home: Exhibits J and U. Isla was at his home that night. No other female child of her size was there that weekend.
The accused denied taking the image. He denied any knowledge of it. He said he did not know how it got onto his iPhone. He did not delete it.
I could not believe him.
Further images recovered from the accused iPhone showed a sleeping child: Exhibits G and M. Those images were created on 21 November 2021 at 2:05AM, 2:16AM and 2:39AM. The final image appeared to be the remnant of what had been a video file: Evidence of Detective Smart. It is shown in Exhibit M only. I could not independently say the child in the image was Isla. Her mother did however identify her from the first two images. It was proper that she make that identification as she had knowledge of her daughter’s appearance in 2021: R v (Mundarra) Smith.
Out of sensitivity to her she was, quite properly, not shown the final image. She was also able to identify from the images shown to her Isla’s favourite pillow and her orange "Oodie" (a hooded wearable blanket). Evidence about the colour and date of purchase of the Oodie was before the Court: Exhibit E. She said Isla often took her pillow and Oodie with her on sleepovers.
Each image shows the same child's head in a similar position. The third image also shows what even the accused's accepted was the tip of a penis and ejaculate on the child's cheek.
The accused was shown the images. He identified the second image he as shown as Isla. He was shown the third, which show an identical child with identical bedding as the other two images. He responded to the Crown’s assertion it also depicted Isla, "I can't tell.” That response damaged his credibility.
He said Isla never brought a pillow with her to his home as they had bedding there. He denied taking the images. He denied any knowledge of them. He said he did not know how they got onto his iPhone. He did not delete them.
I could not believe him.
I could not believe him because while his iPhone was not password protected there was no evidence anyone else had access to his iPhone at the relevant times or had access to the child or the roof space at the relevant times. While it is not known when the files were deleted from his iPhone there is no evidence at all to show anyone else did so or would be motivated to do so. The accused bears no onus here, but I am not required to ponder metaphysical alternatives to what, on the facts, are plain and obvious.
It is possible Isla and other children had access to his iPhone at times, but the images were not “selfies”. They were taken at times he could be expected to have control of his own mobile iPhone. An adult hand was shown in one, and an adult penis in another. Children could not have removed the light fittings or gone into the ceiling space and then returned the iPhone to the accused so he could respond on time to Isla’s mother's text minutes later.
The contents of those images prove each of Counts 8, 10 and 11 beyond reasonable doubt.

Tendency finding

The images also lend powerful support to proof of the second and third tendencies asserted: The sexual interest in Isla and his tendency to act on that interest by engaging in sexual activity with her. I find the evidence at trial does establish those tendencies.
Once I accept, and I do, that the evidence considered as a whole gives rise to the tendency to have a sexual interest in Isla and act on it toward her; once I accept, as I do, that that interest was demonstrated by the photographs taken from the ceiling space and his actions towards her while sleeping; that established tendency can be used to resolve any residual doubts so far as the contact offences, Counts 1 to 5, are concerned. They help also resolve any potential ambiguity in the evidence said to prove the grooming offence: Count 6.

Count 6

Mr Ladmore did give special attention to Isla. It may be, as he asserted in evidence, that he was equally attentive to his own children, but Isla was not his child. He bought her presents even though her parents asked him not to. He gave her small cash gifts. He bragged to Isla’s father that she had said she wanted him to be her dad. She had he run of his house. She responded by treating him with familiarity. She took her friends to his house uninvited. She expected attention from him, and she got his attention.
In cross examination he responded to a question, “She kept coming back”. She was aged 8 to 10 during the relevant period. He treated her as if she was older. He showed her adult things. He did adult things to her. He gave her benefits, that a child could be expected to respond to.
That she eventually rebelled by saying to him, "I'm too young for this" (Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 41), is not surprising. That she sought to assert some control by mentioning the suitcase while her friends were present, is not surprising. That she was forthright in speaking to him, in swearing at him and hitting out at him, is not surprising. None of this was so unbelievable or implausible as to suggest invention. To the contrary, it reinforces my conclusion that the evidence taken as a whole proves beyond reasonable doubt each element of Count 6.

Counts 1 to 5

In submissions Mr McCallum asked for my close scrutiny of the evidence said to support Counts 1 to 5, the physical contact offences. That evidence came only from Isla. It was also subject to strenuous denials, on oath, by the accused.

Mr McCallum submitted that such scrutiny would reveal contradictions between Isla’s accounts of each incident and that the incidents, as she described them, were so inherently implausible that I could not accept they occurred. At most he said I may be suspicious that some conduct or behaviour by the accused may have precipitated the allegations, but such suspicions could not meet the high standard of proof required proof beyond reasonable doubt. A note setting out those submissions in summary was provided: MF1 27.
Islamade no contemporaneous or recent complaint to anyone. She never demonstrated any reluctance to keep attending accused's house right up until time allegations came to light. He said it was thus implausible she would attend his home when other children were not there or bring her friends over. Similarly, he said she would make light of sex toys to her friends and in the presence of accused if they had on fact had been used on her or against her.
As to Count 1 he submitted Isla’s account was implausible because I could not accept that:

The accused would enter his bedroom naked when the girls were watching a movie in his bed.

The accused would initiate sexual contact with complainant with another child there.

The accused would start hitting complainant in such circumstances: Isla’s CIT Q&A 206.

He said the other child must have seen what occurred and although she was much younger, in her police interview gave no evidence of seeing anything at all.
Mr McCallum also submitted that there were significant inconsistencies in Isla’s accounts. He detailed them:

Isla saying, “Told me to lick his private parts but I have not done that”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 38.

Whether he came in and put arms around or pulled her over by her legs: Isla’s CIT Q&A 206 and 280.

Isla’s Inability to remember putting arms around (Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 18) or being pulled over by the legs (Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 19).

Whether the accused was standing on floor or sitting on the bed: Isla’s CIT Q&A 281- 282; 288; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, pp 20, 23 and 26.

Her inability to remember how accused was holding her head down as she asserted: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 22.

Whether accused was also touching [redacted]: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 20.

Whether [redacted] was there: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 26.

As to Count 3 he submitted on the "implausibility" that an offence would have been committed in loungeroom area of house with another child nearby. He noted that the complainant could not account for how accused's underpants were removed: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 32. He reiterated – it was it implausible Isla could have kicked the accused so hard that he fell to ground: Isla’s CIT Q&A 420-421.
He noted the following as "inconsistencies”:

Whether the other child was present: Isla’s CIT Q&A 411 and 440.

An initial complaint she was laying down yet her then saying she was trying to walk away, without explaining how this came about: Isla’s CIT Q&A 418.

Her saying the accused “tried to do it for ages” but it only lasted “a second”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 430.

Her memory of accused pulling her pants down: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 30.

Whether she kicked him so hard he fell to the ground: Isla’s CIT Q&A 420-421; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 31.

He also submitted that I could not infer that the accused had an intention to have sexual intercourse, even if complainant's account is accepted.
As to Counts 4 and 5 he noted the following, which he said showed the implausibility of Isla’s account. That other children were sleeping in the house, and the disturbance did not wake them. That the child she shared the bed with was awake during the incident and not spoken about the incident when interviewed by police.
He submitted that the complainant obviously invented things she could not have seen, such as the accused hiding under the elevated bed: Isla’s CIT Q&A 70. Nor could he have reached over the other child to commit offences while complainant was laying against wall: Isla’s CIT Q&A 91; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 33. He queried how the complainant would have had opportunity to observe colour of sex toy.
He also queried how Isla said she responded to the event by “smacking” the accused in the face “as hard as [she] could”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 48, 71 and 76; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 39. He said that if, as she asserted, the accused had smacked her on her face leaving "huge red mark" (Isla’s CIT Q&A 365), how could she have seen this mark and why did her father not see it after she returned home that morning.
He suggested these “inconsistencies” must operate to cause me significant doubt about whether Isla’s version could be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. He noted in addition:

She said she was sleeping on the top bunk: Isla’s CIT Q&A 56; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 33. But she told her mother she was sleeping on mattress under the bunk.

She told her sister she woke to fake black penis rubbing on inside of leg: Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 124.

She said the accused ducked down right after she woke up (Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 38), which, if had occurred, this would have given him no opportunity to commit offences.

She gave different accounts of what the other child did: Isla’s CIT Q&A 70 and 98; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, pp 37 and 40-45.

It could not be accepted that she went into accused's room and “smacked” him before leaving: Isla’s CIT Q&A 368; Prerecord Tcpt, 26 September 2024, p 42.

Mr McCallum noted Isla’s father had no recollection of ever letting the complainant in when knocking on door: Isla’s CIT Q&A 87. However, I note her father did say that on occasions he was woken by her coming home and would go and check on her. Her father saw no red marks.
Mr McCallum made this important point: Given the standard of proof, I should not fill gaps in the complainant's testimony by supposition nor should I make undue allowance for the fact she was a child. If the evidence lacked probative force because of fundamental inconsistencies and was too implausible for an accurate recall, I should not make allowances or rationalise what was said as it may be a reconstruction and inaccurate or false. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, he said, requires proof of each essential element of a count – no lesser standard applies just because the witness is a child.
He is of course, correct. If an event can't be described coherently and is, as a consequence, implausible it can't be accepted as having occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
The first incident Isla described and reflected in Counts 1 and 2 was not implausible, given the familiarity with which she was treated by the accused. It was not implausible that he was naked as he had been on other occasions. She was in bed with the other younger child, watching a movie. He touched both of them. He touched Isla’s vagina. He held her head. He presented his penis to her asking that she “suck it”. When she said “no”, he hit her and threatened her. She licked his penis for a second or two and then ran away.
There were some inconsistencies as to whether the accused was standing or sitting on the bed. The accounts given did not come out the same way each time it was told. The first account to police was in response to questioning. She was not led but she did not give a straight narration. This was not at all unusual, it is one reason for the direction required by s 293A Crimes Act.
If the accused was confident enough there would be no disclosure and, if there was, the child would not be believed, what was described was neither implausible nor unbelievable.
To the contrary, what occurred was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused tendency to act on his sexual interest in the complainant explains his willingness to take a risk or his failure to consider the consequences to himself and the children present of his acts.
Count 3 is said to have occurred in the accused's lounge room. He had been giving Isla and the other child piggyback rides. His giving children piggyback rides was not unusual. What was ostensibly unusual is that he was only wearing his underwear. Isla said this was in fact common. Mr Ladmore said he never walked around in underwear, only in shorts and a T-shirt. He denied ever exposing his penis to Isla or doing any of the things alleged.
It is alleged he dropped Isla onto the lounge, pulled her pants down fast. She said he “tried to stick his penis in”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 408-409 and 417. She told her mother, “He tried to put it in, but it was too big”.
When asked, "Where did it touch you?" Isla replied, "My vagina”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 429. And he put his penis on her vagina: Isla’s CIT Q&A 430. She said, “He tried to do it for ages, like for ages but he only had a second”.
She said she then hit and kicked him to the “penis” and “tummy”, and he “fell to the ground”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 420. Mr McCallum highlighted the implausibility of a 10-year-old doing any such thing. I accept a blow so hard to fell an adult was very unlikely, although Isla had been to jujitsu lessons. This aspect of her evidence appeared to be an exaggeration to give herself some agency when retelling the story to police or it could I have been an invention. The question I must ask is: Does this so undermine her account that I reject the allegations?
I cannot reject her account of the facts that prove this Count. There was nothing at all implausible about an adult putting a child on a lounge, pulling down her pants and placing his penis against her vagina. Support for a conclusion Mr Ladmore did what was alleged comes from my conclusion the second and third tendency asserted exist. Nor is it implausible that Isla would have kicked and hit out at him.
That Isla believed at the time he was trying to penetrate her, and later presumed this was because he was “too big”, cannot resolve the issue relating to a key element of Count 3 “intent to have sexual intercourse”.
What the child thought however, cannot alone lead to me to a conclusion this element has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Isla does not attribute any words to the accused, nor does she describe where exactly the penis was in the second the touching occurred.
An objective analysis of the facts leaves open the possibility the accused was using his penis to touch her vaginal area, part of his regular practice of sexualising her and making her accustomed to sexual activity. Although there is some evidence that Isla complained of an act of oral intercourse that was videoed taped the absence of any other account involving penetration of the child's genitals means I cannot presume that this was his only intention. What occurred was however sexual touching and an alternative count has been made out beyond reasonable doubt.
Counts 4 and 5 relate to an allegation said have occurred while Isla was sleeping over in an elevated bed purchased after Mr Ladmore separated from his wife in June 2022. That bed and its size, relative to an adult as tall as the accused, can be seen in the walk-through video of the accused's home: Exhibit K. The event was said to have occurred about a month before the April 2023 revelations: Isla’s CIT Q&A 42.
Mr Ladmore in evidence was emphatic, stating there were no sleepovers after an event on 29 September 2022. Isla’s parents said they continued up until the revelations, both denied Mr Ladmore's assertion that Isla had been "banned" from having sleepovers. As noted above, the parent's account fitted known facts and can be accepted.
Isla says she was woken either by the other child or being touched: Isla’s CIT Q&A 61. She said the accused used a fake black penis on her vagina on her skin: Isla’s CIT Q&A 269. It did not go in: Isla’s CIT Q&A 270.
Initially she said, "He was trying to lick me": Isla’s CIT Q&A 52. He then pulled her shorts across and "was trying to" lick her vagina: Isla’s CIT Q&A 70. She immediately clarified this, “Then he licked me”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 70. She reiterated later, "Well he did [lick me]”: Isla’s CIT Q&A 103. And again, at Isla’s CIT Q&A 109, “Well he kind of pulled my shorts across and he tried licking my vagina but he kind of did and it felt weird”. She said he was scared. She hit him. He hit her leaving a “huge red mark”. She said she confronted him verbally and hit him both in the bedroom and in his bedroom as she was leaving the house. She said when she went home, she saw her father, but he did not see the mark on her face.
There is nothing implausible in this account nor are any inconsistencies in the recollections of events going to proof of the count such that they seriously damage Isla’s credibility.
In simple terms, she alleges the accused touched her with his hands and then the black dildo waking her and waking the other child. He pulled her by her leg moved her shorts aside and licked her vagina. The mechanics of what occurred are not impossible or implausible. An adult of the accused's size could have easily done what was alleged.
A child on being woken suddenly in the middle of night could be disoriented. A child waking in such circumstances and subject to multiple assaults would have difficulty recalling the exact order things occurred and how she was moved on the bed, slight differences do not undermine her account. She was clear about each act. I can accept beyond reasonable doubt she was touched with the dildo and that for a brief period the accused moved her pants aside and licked her vagina.
As with Count 3, the complainant on retelling appears to have exaggerated her physical acts of resistance, but given her age this does not mean her credibility is so damaged that I cannot on accept her evidence which if accepted establishes beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offences.
I do accept that testimony. It is given entirely consistent with the established tendencies.

Verdicts

Count 1 – Intentionally sexually touch Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years: Guilty.
Count 2 – Intentionally incite Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years: Guilty.
Count 3 – Assaulted Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years, with intent to have sexual intercourse (penis in vagina) with her: Not guilty.
Alternative to Count 3 – Intentionally sexually touch Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years: Guilty.
Count 4 – Intentionally sexually touch Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years: Guilty.
Count 5 – Sexual intercourse (licking vagina) with Isla, a child then of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years, namely 10 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the relevant time Isla was under the authority of Mark Andrew Ladmore: Guilty.
Count 6 – Mark Ladmore, being an adult person, engaged in conduct that exposed a child namely Isla, to indecent material, and provided the said Isla with financial and other material benefits, with the intention of making it easier to procure the said Isla then aged 8-10 years for unlawful sexual activity with Mark Ladmore: Guilty.
Count 7 – On 21 April 2023, at [redacted] in the State of New South Wales, did possess child abuse material: Not guilty.
Count 8 – Use Isla, a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Guilty.
Count 10 – Intentionally carry out a sexual act towards Isla, a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years: Guilty.
Count 11 – Use Isla, a child then under the age of 14 years, namely 9 years, for the production of child abuse material: Guilty.

Accordingly, I find Mark Andrew Ladmore not guilty of Counts 3 and 7 and guilty of Counts 1, 2, Alternative Count 3, Counts 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11.

Note

Judgment prepared without the benefit of transcript, other than pre-recorded evidence.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 March 2025

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.