R v Lawrence - [2019] NSWDC 363

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates: 19 June 2019 – 2 July 2019
Date of orders: 26 July 2019
Decision date: 26 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Gartelmann SC DCJ
Decision:
In respect of Count 1: guilty; in respect of Count 2: guilty.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge - CRIME — Child sexual offences — Sexual intercourse with child <16 —Indecent assault — Circumstances of aggravation <16
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Graeme Lawrence (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Leggat SC (Crown)
P Winch (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John Anthony Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/00343861
Publication restriction: Publication of any matter which identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant in these proceedings is prohibited: s 578A(2) Crimes Act 1900.

Judgment

The Crown presented an indictment against the accused on 19 June 2019 comprising 2 counts. Each alleged an offence between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1991 at Newcastle in New South Wales. However, each was amended on 20 June 2019 so that the date range became 30 January 1991 to 31 December 1991. This became the relevant period in the trial.
Count 1 alleged the accused assaulted the complainant and, immediately before the assault, committed an act of indecency on him, namely fondled his genitals, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the time of the offence, the complainant was aged under the age of 16 years, being in fact aged 15 years.
Count 2 alleged the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent, knowing that he was not consenting to the sexual intercourse, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the time of the offence, the complainant was a person aged under the age of 16 years, being in fact aged 15 years.
The accused pleaded not guilty to each count. The accused elected and the Crown consented to an order for a judge-alone trial. The trial therefore proceeded before me without a jury.

Directions

Applicable legal principles should be stated at the outset.
The most fundamental principles in a criminal trial concern the onus and standard of proof. The Crown has the onus of proof throughout. The accused need not prove anything and is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown proves his guilt.
The Crown must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard in the law. It is not enough to prove a suspicion or even the likelihood of guilt. The Crown need not prove every fact but must prove those it relies on as constituting elements of the offences to this standard.
Although only the complainant and the accused are said to have been present at the time, determination whether the alleged offences are proven does not amount to a choice about which to believe. This is because the Crown must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant’s evidence must therefore establish beyond reasonable doubt the facts constituting them. If the accused’s evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt about them he must be found not guilty.
No compromise in verdicts is permissible. The accused cannot be found guilty on one count and not guilty on the other merely because neither is proven to the high standard required. He cannot be found guilty on any count unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused can be found guilty on one count and not guilty on the other if the evidence warrants it. However, as the Crown relies only on the complainant’s evidence to prove both counts, any reasonable doubt on one count arising from its unreliability would need to be considered on the other.
Questions of fact are for me as tribunal of fact to decide. I may accept all, part, or nothing of a witness’s evidence with good reason. I may take into account not only what a witness said but the way he or she said it.
Inferences can be drawn from facts the direct evidence establishes however care must be exercised because of the high standard of proof required in a criminal trial. An inference should be examined to ensure it is justified and the only reasonable inference.
The inspection of the place where the offences were allegedly committed forms part of the evidence. Inferences may be drawn from observations in it but care is required equally here.
Evidence of complaint may support the Crown case if consistent with it. It can provide evidence of the alleged offences in addition to that of the complainant. The terms and manner of a complaint affect whether it does and the weight it warrants. Evidence of complaint can also support the complainant’s credibility. Consistency between his account and conduct in the circumstances may affect the assessment of this. However, mere repetition does not make an assertion more reliable. Nor does delay in complaint make it unreliable. A victim of a sexual offence may have good reasons for it.
The accused’s account in interview with police forms part of the evidence. However, he need not prove its truth. The Crown must prove its case and so that there is no reasonable possibility it is true.
Evidence of the accused and his witness is to be treated the same as other evidence. However, the defence need not prove it is true. The Crown must prove its case and so that there is no reasonable possibility it is true.
The Crown contended the accused lied at times in his evidence. A statement is only a lie if made knowing it is untrue and not because of mistake, confusion or misremembering. The Crown did not rely on lies to support its case and so they are relevant only to his credibility.
The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of each offence.
The elements of Count 1 are that the accused assaulted the complainant; without the complainant’s consent and knowing it was without consent; immediately before the assault, he committed an act of indecency; and the complainant was aged under 16 years at the time.
An assault is the deliberate and unlawful touching of a person. The act need not be hostile or aggressive or cause fear or pain, and a touch will suffice.
Consent means conscious and voluntary permission to touch the body in such a manner. It can be indicated through words or conduct. Actual knowledge of lack of consent is required. However, it may be inferred from facts and circumstances.
Indecent means contrary to ordinary standards of respectable people in the community. It requires a sexual connotation or overtone, as with touching another’s body or using one’s body to touch another’s in such a place or way. All the circumstances are to be taken into account, including the parties’ words, actions, ages and relationship. The charge requires that the act of indecency occurred immediately before the assault.
The complainant must have been aged under 16 years at the time.
The elements of Count 2 are that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant; it was without the complainant’s consent; the accused knew the complainant did not consent; and the complainant was aged under 16 years.
Sexual intercourse relevantly means sexual connection occasioned by penetration to any extent of the anus of a person by any part of the body of another.
Consent means free and voluntary agreement. It may be given after persuasion but only if free and voluntary. It can be indicated through words or conduct. However, failure physically to resist does not demonstrate consent. Actual knowledge of lack of consent is required. However, this may be inferred from facts and circumstances.
The complainant must have been aged under 16 years at the time.

Cases

The Crown case may be summarised as follows.
The complainant became involved with a Christian youth band in his teens. He helped its members at a youth event at Newcastle’s Christchurch Anglican Cathedral when he was aged 15 years and in Year 10 at school.
The accused was the dean of Newcastle’s Anglican diocese at the time. He approached the complainant in the cathedral. They went for a walk behind the altar and looked at a gold bible. The accused invited the complainant to attend the deanery later with other youth. The complainant asked his mother and she gave him permission to go.
The accused returned later and indicated it was time. The complainant walked with the accused from the cathedral to the deanery. The accused took him to a small room. There were pictures of naked boys on its walls. The accused asked the complainant if he liked them and he said no.
The accused pulled the complainant’s shirt over his head and removed his pants. The complainant was on his hands and knees. The accused fondled the complainant’s genitals and asked if he liked it but he said no. The accused inserted his penis into the complainant’s anus. The complainant told him to stop and tried to move away but the accused persisted. The accused grabbed his shoulders and armpits.
The complainant managed to get up. He pulled his shirt back down and pants up, and ran out. The accused told him not to bother telling anyone, as he was the dean and the complainant just a boy and no one would believe him. The complainant returned to the cathedral and told his mother he wanted to go. She drove him home.
The complainant encountered the accused at a train station a year or two later. His mother noticed he turned pale and uncommunicative. He made complaints to his mother, wife and friends in 2016 and 2017.
The defence case may be summarised as follows.
The accused had never met the complainant. He did not invite the complainant to the deanery. The complainant had never been in it to the accused’s knowledge.
The band played in the cathedral on few if any occasions in the relevant period and not at all when the accused resided away from the deanery during its repairs, which occurred throughout most of the relevant period.
He had no recollection that he attended Broadmeadow train station in 1992 or 1993 and had no reason to do so.

Evidence

Evidence bearing on factual issues arising from these cases is detailed below.
The complainant’s account of the incident was as follows.
He said he was helping the band set up in the mid-afternoon for an evening youth service at the cathedral on an occasion when he was in Year 10. [1] He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt as it was not cold. It may have been autumn. [2] His recollection was that it was a Sunday night. [3]
1. T21.9-14
2. T21.44-47
3. T22.4
Graeme Lawrence, the dean at that time, came over between 5.30 and 6pm. He said hello, and asked if he wanted to go for a walk. The complainant said yes. [4] They walked around the back of the altar. The accused showed him a gold bible and he saw photos of priests and bishops on the wall.
4. T22.7-9
He returned to help the band. The youth service finished at around 9.30 or 10pm. [5] He and the dean crossed paths again while he was packing up. The dean said, “Would you like to come back to my place? There’ll be other youth there”. [6] He replied “yes, okay”. He kept packing up band equipment. [7] The dean later indicated they were going to his place.
5. T26.13-20
6. T26.30-31
7. T34-36
They walked out the cathedral’s main entrance, along its side, and towards the deanery. [8] They walked through the front gate to the front door. [9] The dean unlocked the front door with a key. [10] They walked in and he looked around. He was confused as to where the other youth were. [11]
8. T26.39-T27.17
9. T27.20
10. T27.45
11. T28.5-6
They entered a room and he froze, wondering what was going to happen. He noticed pictures of naked boys on the wall. [12] The dean asked if he liked the pictures. He said “no”. [13] He did not shout or scream. [14]
12. T28.12-30
13. T29.15-18
14. T44 – 45
The dean was standing in front of him. He was frozen as he did not know what was about to happen. The dean grabbed his shoulders and pulled his shirt from his back and over the top of his head. [15] [The complainant gestured with both hands above his shoulders moving in an arc over his head and down towards his chest as he described this.]
15. T.21-24
The dean then forced him onto his hands and knees with the t-shirt still over his head. He was shaking and scared. [16] The dean said “It’s okay. Just relax”. [17] The dean then reached down to the back of the complainant’s pants and pulled them down a little. He heard a belt being undone and then pants falling. The dean reached around and pulled the complainant’s pants down further, lifting him up to pull them down to his knees.” [18]
16. T30.6-9
17. T30.19
18. T30.22-26
The dean played with the complainant’s genitals for approximately 10 to 15 seconds. The dean kept saying “relax” and “do you like that”? The complainant said “No, I don’t like it. Stop.” [19]
19. 32.4-6.
The complainant felt the dean behind him. He could smell incense. He thought it was from the dean’s clothes. The dean was pushing down on his back. He felt the dean’s penis next to then pushing against his “backside”. [20] He moved forward to get away. The dean held onto his shoulders and was pushing in a little harder. The dean kept saying, “Relax. It’s okay, relax”. The dean held the complainant’s shoulder or armpits as he was pushing his penis inside the complainant’s backside. He clarified this meant anus. [21]
20. T30.39-41
21. T31.15-19
The complainant said “stop”. The accused again said “Just relax. It’s okay.” [22] The complainant kept trying to move forward but the accused kept trying to re-enter his anus. The complainant said there was then “one forceful one”. He jumped up and threw his t-shirt back over his head, then ran out of the room, pulling up his pants as he went. [23]
22. T31.25-30
23. T31.32-37
As he was leaving, the dean said, “Don’t bother telling anyone. You’re just a boy and I’m the dean. No one will believe you.” [24]
24. T2.40-42
The complainant ran out the front door and back to the cathedral. He wiped away tears and made sure his clothes were okay. He did not talk to anyone. He found his mother talking to his aunts. He stood with them until his mum asked if he was ready to go and he said “yes”. [25]
25. T33.1-5
They drove home in his mother’s car. He had a shower when he got home. There was blood in his underpants and in the water at the bottom of the shower. He washed himself but felt dirty no matter how much he did so. He still felt pain. He got in his pyjamas and went to bed, and cried himself to sleep. [26]
26. T33.27-32
He recalled going to school the next day, as “it was just another normal Monday morning.” [27] He did not say anything to anyone because he did not think anyone would believe him. He did not want to tell band members as he feared he may become an outcast.
27. T33.36-37
The accused’s account was as follows.
He denied ever meeting or knowing the complainant at all. [28] Nor had he ever had a conversation with him. [29] He did not take the complainant for a walk. [30] There was no gold bible in the cathedral but rather a book of gold, and he did not recall showing it to the complainant. [31]
28. T142.20
29. T213
30. T214
31. T214.24-25
The band played in the cathedral on 24 August 1991 but few if any other occasions in the relevant period. [32] He had never invited the complainant to the deanery. [33] He did not reside in it between April and November 1991 as it was undergoing renovation. There were never pictures of naked boys in it.
32. T157.14-15
33. T213
He denied that he had ever sexually interfered with the complainant. [34]
34. T145
Evidence bearing on circumstances of significance to these accounts is addressed below.
Evidence regarding the state of the cathedral in the relevant period included the following.
The complainant described scaffolding in the cathedral in 1991 following the 1989 earthquake. He remembered scaffolding down the side of pews supporting archways. [35] Scaffolding may have been set up outside as well. [36] He did not remember whether windows were boarded up.
35. T20.16-17
36. T37
The accused said the earthquake caused damage to the cathedral. Towers fell and glass broke. Safety measures were put in to allow continued use of the cathedral. [37] Scaffolding was erected right around the building and there was fixed and moveable scaffolding inside. [38]
37. T138.
38. T137-138
A photograph of the east end of the cathedral depicts its damage and works. [39]
39. Exhibit 2
Evidence regarding the cathedral’s contents in the period included the following.
The complainant described a gold bible and photos of past bishops and deans.
The accused said there was no gold bible but was a gold book in a glass case in the cathedral’s southern ambulatory. His “best memory” was it remained there during the relevant period and “certainly until the major renovation work happened when walls were taken down”. [40] As far as he was aware, pictures of former bishops and deans were also located in the south ambulatory during the 1990s. [41]
40. T206
41. T206
Evidence regarding cathedral events where the band played included the following.
The complainant said he began helping set up and pack up the band equipment when he was aged 14 years and in Year 9. [42] He began helping set up for youth services at the cathedral toward the end of that year. His mother usually dropped him off. He became more involved in Year 10. The band played at youth services whenever they were held at the cathedral. He helped carrying and setting up equipment, and with the sound and lighting during services. [43]
42. T18-19
43. T20.49-T21.2
The complainant’s mother said the complainant became more involved with church activities when he became involved in youth group. He helped with sound and lighting at school and church, and attended youth services at the cathedral a couple of times including for a Christian band. [44] She went with the complainant to the cathedral “quite a lot of times”. [45] There were youth services of some kind on these occasions in 1990 and 1991. [46] They were not frequent, perhaps only two to three times a year. [47]
44. T74
45. T74.49
46. T81.1-3
47. T81.
Mr Eve said the band played at the cathedral and other churches within the diocese from the early 1990s. [48]
48. T93-94
Mr Warland said the band had a youth following and performed at churches in the Hunter region. [49]
49. T98.15
Ms Bowyer, the incumbent dean, gave evidence regarding the 1991 cathedral diary. [50] She understood events of significance in the cathedral were recorded in the diary. Entries for 21, 23 and 24 August 1991 referred to a youth rehearsal; tentative youth dance rehearsal; a youth service and youth festivities. [51] There was no other entry for a ‘youth’ service. [52]
50. Exhibit G
51. T102.18-37
52. T105.23-24
Detective Sergeant Little gave evidence regarding the diary and a two-volume register of services dating from 25 April 1991 to 15 September 1993. [53] The diary contained numerous references to concerts. [54] The register refers to a youth service only on 24 August 1991 [55] but also a music festival on 26 to 29 September 1991.
53. T126; Exhibit H
54. T131
55. T130
The accused denied there were youth bands at the cathedral in interview with police. [56] He maintained this was at the time and remained a truthful answer in evidence. [57] He was aware of the youth band from 1991. He stated, “There was a youth band which played at the diocesan youth service on the 24th day of August 1991. On no other occasion.” [58] He said he had no recollection that the band attended on 24 August 1991 at the time of the interview. [59] He maintained his answer was “correct”, as there were no youth bands at the cathedral “as a permanent fixture or a part of its life.” [60]
56. Exhibit E & MFI 6 at 5-6
57. T156.47
58. T157.14-15
59. T157.3-10
60. T159.45-47

He said he had no “real connection” with the band. They did not operate in his parish but elsewhere. He had no reason to be involved with them as someone else in the church was responsible for it. [61] He said he remembered two band members only when they gave evidence. [62]
61. T142
62. T142.27-29
He said he had closely examined the register and its only reference to a youth Eucharist was 24 August 1991. Two further references to ‘youth’ related to rehearsals only. [63] He was asked about numerous other entries in the register and diary. He accepted the probability the band rehearsed at the cathedral on Saturday 10 August 1991 and the possibility it performed at a special mental health week service on Sunday 20 October 1991 and a human rights day service on Sunday 20 December 1991. [64] He otherwise maintained the band did not play on suggested occasions although conceded this was not based on recollection but its incompatibility with the occasion concerned.
63. T140
64. T198.05; T199.20
Evidence regarding the alleged invitation to the deanery included the following.
As already noted, the complainant said the dean invited him to the deanery after the service and said other youth would be there.
As also already noted, the accused said he had never invited the complainant to the deanery. [65] He maintained he did not invite young people to the deanery after services as there was a social event in the cathedral hall afterwards almost every time. [66]
65. T213
66. T145
The complainant’s mother said she was at the cathedral with the complainant in 1990 or 1991 on a Saturday or Sunday night. The service finished at around 8.30 to 9 o’clock. [67] The complainant approached her towards the rear of the cathedral. He said the dean had asked him whether he would like to go with other youths to the deanery. [68] She saw no reason he should not go as other youth were going. [69]
67. T76.9-10
68. T75.14-16
69. T75.27-36
Evidence regarding the deanery in the period included the following.
The complainant described walking through a gate and a small front yard or courtyard before entering the front door of the deanery. [70] He could see from floodlights lighting the cathedral.
70. T27.20-21
Mr Green, headmaster of Newcastle Grammar School from October 1989 to September 2014, visited the cathedral twice a week, as it was the school chapel. He often visited the deanery to plan school services or meet with the dean. He said there had always been a gate and fence going from a brick wall of the deanery across to a house to its north. [71] He said it was in the same location as in a recent photograph but was shorter, at around four foot, and natural wood colour in 1991. [72] However, he conceded it was possible the fence was temporarily dismantled during renovation of the deanery and cathedral. [73]
71. T114
72. Exhibit C
73. T117-118
A church warden’s property inspection report dated 19 September 1993 stated that repairs and painting were needed to a rear fence opposite the cathedral. [74] . The warden’s report dated 21 February 1994 stated it had subsequently been repaired. [75]
74. Exhibit D
75. Exhibit E
The accused said there was no fence or gate to the deanery during the period he moved out to the best of his recollection. [76] He said a fence and gate were erected “well after” the earthquake repairs had been completed, and around 1993 or 1994 to his recollection.
76. T143.43
The accused’s partner, Mr Goyette, said there was no fence and only bushes between the deanery and the cathedral. [77] He said his recollection was that there was no fence until later in the 1990s. He said it was “certainly” not there in the early 1990s but could not recall how much later it was. [78]
77. T234
78. T238.10-12
Photographs said to depict areas to the front of the deanery where the fence had been were tendered in the defence case. [79] The accused said it was clear from one photograph there was neither a fence nor a gate and rather a hedge beginning to grow. [80] Mr Goyette also said at least one photograph was taken from a position that would have shown the fence. [81]
79. Exhibit 6
80. T222.31
81. TT260
The complainant described the front door as a “smallish” double door. He described two small doors opening to a size larger than a normal sized door. [82] He said the accused unlocked the doors with a key.
82. T27.34-36
The accused referred in evidence to the deanery having front “doors”. [83] He said he had keys to the deanery throughout the relevant period. [84]
83. T138.40
84. T164.14
Double doors that together formed a larger than normal sized door were in place at the time of the inspection.
Evidence regarding the deanery’s condition in the period included the following.
The complainant said he did not recall any signs of repairs being done at the deanery. He did not remember noticing any sign the room or corridor were being repaired or items such as paint or tins. [85]
85. T41
The accused described damage to the deanery as “fairly catastrophic. A movement of the walls, falling masonry, general destruction”. [86] He said plastering and repainting was required almost throughout. [87]
86. T135.2-3
87. T147.08
Mr Goyette said work was required to remove cracked plaster and bits and pieces hanging off walls. [88]
88. T233.22-23
Mr Tilse, a builder, said he commenced repairs to the cathedral and deanery in about June 1991. The works took around six months. Scaffolding was erected around two thirds of the deanery’s exterior. Mobile scaffolding on wheels was used inside. [89] He said “considerable” repairs were needed including to brickwork, plaster and ceilings. However, he said, “none of this was total. It was just bits and pieces throughout the building.” [90]
89. T109
90. TT110-111
An undated plan details work required to repair cornices, cracks to walls and ceilings, and rendering in various areas of the deanery. [91]
91. Exhibit A
Photographs depict damaged areas of the deanery’s interior but also show some furnishings remained. [92]
92. Exhibit 7
Evidence regarding the deanery’s occupation in the period included the following.
The complainant said he did not notice evidence of the deanery’s occupation as he walked through the front door, as it was “very empty”. [93]
93. T39.40
Mr Tilse said some furniture and personal effects had to be moved out but estimated that 50% remained. [94]
94. T108.44-50
The accused gave evidence he and his partner moved out of the deanery on 30 April 1991, and that this was noted in his diary. [95] He maintained removalists took all of the furniture and decorations. [96]
95. T135.11-12
96. T139.05-16
Mr Goyette also said no furniture remained in the deanery’s private upstairs area when he and the accused moved out during renovations. [97]
97. T252
A removalist’s quote and invoice confirm furniture was removed between 17 April 1991 and 17 May 1991 but do not itemise or quantify it. [98]
98. Exhibits 4 & 5
The complainant said after entering the deanery he continued through a hallway to the lounge room, along a hallway, and into a room on the right. In cross-examination, he again said the room was to the right, although he appeared to indicate with his hand a turn to the left as he did so. [99] He said at the front of the house there was a hall and then another room. He described then continuing around to a door on the right. He described it as, “like a circle. You could go right through.” [100] When queried about his gesture, he maintained he turned right. [101] He repeated that after entering through the front door, he went into another room, then around to a hallway from which the room was off to the right. [102] However, he said that when he fled the room he remembered running down the hall then turning left and then back out the front door. [103]
99. T40
100. T40.1-3
101. T59-60
102. T60
103. T32
The plan depicts [104] and inspection of the deanery confirms [105] its front entrance led to a foyer area from which one proceeded left around an internal stairwell and into a small hallway, then right into a small hallway, then left into the room.
104. Exhibit A
105. MFI 8
Evidence regarding the room included the following.
The complainant described the room as “fairly small,” more the size of an office than a bedroom. [106] He said it smelt “like your grandparents’ house smell. That sort of older house smell.” [107]
106. T28.18-20
107. T29.2-3
The accused said the room was a very small room to the left off a hallway in the deanery.
The plan depicts [108] and inspection of the deanery confirmed [109] the room is small.
108. Exhibit A
109. MFI 8
The complainant said there was a window straight ahead from the doorway. [110]
110. T28.49
The accused agreed there was such a window. [111]
111. T146-147
The plan depicts [112] and inspection of the deanery confirms [113] there was a single window in the room opposite its door.
112. Exhibit A
113. MFI 8
Evidence regarding the room’s contents included the following.
The complainant said there was little furniture in the room, maybe just a chair. [114] He was unsure how many pictures of naked boys were on the walls in front of him and to his right. [115] He estimated they were a bit smaller than A4 size. [116] He thought there was “maybe a wardrobe on this side”, indicating with his left hand to his side and slightly behind. [117]
114. TT28.19-20
115. T28.30-32
116. T38
117. T39
Inspection of the deanery revealed [118] a wardrobe in this position. However, there was no evidence regarding its existence in the relevant period.
118. MFI 8
The accused said an “ironing lady” came weekly and chiefly used the room. [119] He said he suspected there was likely a chair in the room in the relevant period until he moved out of the deanery. [120] He said he did not know of any purpose one would have been there after he moved back. [121] He said art was ordinarily displayed in public rooms but little if any in bedrooms. He said there were never any pictures of nude figures. [122]
119. T144.41-42
120. T154
121. T155
122. T144
Mr Goyette said furniture in the room comprised two single beds and a metal cabinet until they moved out, and an ironing board behind the door. [123] He said he did not remember a chair in the room. [124] He said they displayed a collection of paintings and prints in the deanery’s lounge room, dining room and entrance but none was “risqué” or depicted nudity. [125] He denied they had any pictures of naked boys. [126]
123. T271.34-38
124. T241
125. T244.19
126. T248
Evidence regarding the room’s condition included the following:
The accused said the room had plaster off the walls and the window required repair. [127]
127. T146.44
The plan indicates works required for most of the deanery’s rooms but not the subject room.
Mr Tilse did not identify the rooms that required repairs.
Evidence regarding events in the room included the following.
The complainant described the smell of incense on the dean’s clothes during the incident. [128]
128. T30-31
The accused said a clergyman in the diocese complained incense was used in the service on 24 August 1991 but it was in fact a smoke machine. He had a clear memory of this as he found it quite funny at the time. [129] He said the smoke produced no smell as it was not meant to be incense or to have an aroma. [130] He said incense used in the cathedral was unlikely to permeate clothing he wore under his robes as he wore two to three layers over his cassock and it went away once he walked outside into the air. [131]
129. T141.34
130. T211.
131. T212
Mr Goyette said the accused’s church clothes, such as his clerical dress and cassocks, “certainly” smelled of incense from the cathedral. However, he then said he did not recall it being a heavy smell of incense. [132]
132. T236-237
Evidence regarding events immediately following the alleged offences included the following.
The complainant said he returned to the cathedral and found his mother with his aunts. He said she asked if he was ready to go, and he said, "Yes." They then left. [133]
133. T33
The complainant’s mother said the complainant approached her at around 10.30pm in the cathedral grounds. She described him as “agitated”, “snappy” and “angry”. She recalled he kept saying “I just want to get out of here.” [134] She drove them home in her car. She agreed she did not state to police that the complainant said “I just want to get out of here” but denied she was making this up, and reiterated that he “did want to get out of there”. [135]
134. T76.19-35
135. T87
Evidence regarding subsequent encounters included the following.
The complainant said he continued to be involved in church activities but “kept close to people” and “never really spoke to the dean again”, except occasions when the dean greeted them as a group. However, once in the cathedral the dean said, “Remember, no one will believe you”. [136]
136. T33.49-T34.5
Mr Eve said in the early 1990s he was with a small group at the cathedral when the dean said, “Hello, [complainant’s unabbreviated given name].” He thought this a “bit strange” or “weird”, as no one called the complainant his full first name, and the dean did not say hello to him yet knew him too. [137]
137. T93.44-94.12
The accused denied ever meeting or knowing the complainant at all. [138]
138. T142.20
Mr Goyette said he did not recall the accused ever referring to the complainant’s name or anyone with that name associated with a youth band. [139]
139. T243-244
Evidence regarding the alleged encounter at the train station included the following.
The complainant said a couple of years after the incident when he was aged about 16 or 17 years, he and friends were going to Sydney. His mother drove them to a train station. He recalled it was Broadmeadow. He saw the dean on the platform. He froze and could not speak. He sat next to his friends on the platform. They asked what was wrong and he said “Nothing”. He waited until the train came and his mother left. [140] He agreed seeing the dean at the station surprised him but denied it was because it was not in a church environment, and said it was because he knew straightaway who it was, and he was scared, despite being with his mother and friends. [141]
140. T34.13-22
141. T48
The complainant’s mother said she saw the dean at a train station about a year after the occasion the complainant was invited to the deanery. She recalled the station was Broadmeadow but later said it could have been Hamilton. [142] She pointed out the dean to him. He moved towards the train line and away from the dean. He turned a “funny colour” and “sort of went white”. [143] She thought it odd that he did not speak to the dean, as he knew the dean and normally spoke to anyone he knew. Then he got on the train without saying goodbye. [144] She picked him up the next day and asked him what was wrong but he “sort of fobbed” her off, and was “obviously still a bit stressed”. [145]
142. T87.25
143. T77.36
144. TT77.39-42
145. T78.7-10
The accused said he had no memory of seeing the complainant at the station and commented “I can’t imagine why I would be on Broadmeadow station when there is a perfectly good one at the end of my street.” [146] He conceded it was possible he may have been there in 1992 or 1993 to see someone off on the XPT train service as it departed from Broadmeadow station for Sydney but commented, “I can't imagine why any friend of mine travelling to Sydney would be going on the XPT at the unusual times it leaves.” [147]
146. T143.32-24
147. T203-T204
Mr Goyette said he occasionally went to Broadmeadow station to travel on the XPT service in 1991, 1992 and 1993. He denied the accused took him to Broadmeadow station from time to time. He said they sometimes took a train to Sydney, but not the XPT. [148] However, he said it was possible the accused went there to greet or see him off on occasions in this period. [149] He then said he misunderstood the questioning and his answers pertained to recent times. He said he “rarely” caught the train from Broadmeadow in 1991 to 1993 as he was living in Newcastle. [150]
148. T248.48-49
149. T249
150. T250
Evidence of complaint included the following.
The complainant’s mother said the complainant phoned her in late 2016. He said he had something to say about the royal commission. She told him to come over and he soon did. He was “obviously upset” and “a bit shaky and a bit teary”. [151] He said he was going to the commission. [152] He said the dean at the time, Graeme Lawrence, had abused him, and they talked for a while about how he felt. [153]
151. T79.11-15
152. T79.18-23
153. T79.43-48
The complainant’s wife of 14 years said they were watching television together in August 2016. Something about institutional child sexual abuse was on. She asked if he knew anyone affected and if anything had happened to him, and he said no. [154] Later that week, he phoned her from work and asked to meet. She asked what was wrong and if he was ok. He reminded her of their conversation and his denial that anything had happened to him and said “Well, actually, it did”. He said he would talk about it more when he get home but wanted her to know. [155] Later that evening he told her he had been abused when he was younger, she thought about 15. He said it was Dean Lawrence and that it was at the dean’s residence on the cathedral grounds. [156] His demeanour was “really nervous. He was calm but really kind of nervous when he was speaking about it.” [157]
154. T89.23-36
155. T89.45-50
156. T90
157. T90.50-91.1
Mr Eve, a band member, said the complainant phoned him in 2016. The complainant said he had “some big news” and, referring to the royal commission, said he was “a victim.” [158] He asked “who?” and the complainant said “the dean”. [159] He asked how it happened and the complainant said he was invited back to the deanery and when he got there, there was no one else there except the dean.
158. T92.20-24
159. T92.26-32
Mr Hann said the complainant phoned him in 2016 and said, “I was abused by the dean” [160] but they did not discuss any details. [161]
160. T96.23-29
161. T97.33.34
Mr Warland, a band member, said the complainant told him at Damien Wall’s party in March 2017, “I was sexually abused by Dean Lawrence in the deanery”. [162] The complainant said something about a shirt being pulled over his head though he thought this might have been in an unrelated incident. [163]
162. T98.40-41
163. T99.16 – 32
Robert Wall had known the complainant since his sons befriended him in their early teens. Two of his sons were in the band. The complainant helped them set and pack up. [164] He said he saw the complainant on a job site and said hello to him in about March or April 2017. The next day the complainant phoned and said Dean Graeme Lawrence had sexually abused him at the deanery. [165] The complainant said he was invited to the dean’s residence and “when he got there, there was nobody else there.” [166] He said the complainant said he could not get away [167] but struggled to recall the conversation verbatim. [168]
164. T68
165. T69-70
166. T71.5-7
167. T72.33
168. T72.34-36
Joshua Wall, a band member, said the complainant phoned him in 2016. The complainant said he was at an event at the cathedral and Lawrence invited him to a group gathering after that event but he soon realised it was just himself and there was no one else. The complainant said, “Lawrence got me”. In the context of the conversation, he knew the complainant meant he was sexually assaulted. [169] The complainant said he saw some pornographic images in a particular room in the cathedral on the cathedral grounds. [170]
169. T100.31-35
170. T100.45-46

Damien Wall said the complainant came to his house in 2013 and said he was struggling with issues with the church in the past. However, Mr Wall was unsure of their nature and just wanted to offer support. [171]
171. T101

Consideration

My assessment of the evidence regarding factual issues of significance is addressed below.
The cathedral’s condition in the relevant period became an insignificant issue, as it was common ground the cathedral was in continuing use in any event.
The complainant’s account of a gold book in the cathedral was confirmed in the accused’s evidence. Whether it was a bible is insignificant.
The complainant’s account of photos of former church leaders in the same area was also confirmed in the accused’s evidence.
The complainant’s account that he helped the band at a youth event in the cathedral during the relevant period was consistent with his mother’s evidence that he did so in 1990 or 1991. Mr Eve’s evidence also supports that the band played in the cathedral in the early 1990s.
The complainant’s account was that it was a Sunday night. His mother’s recollection was that it was a Saturday or Sunday night. Cathedral records contain entries consistent with occasions when the band may have played in the relevant period. The diary and register both refer to a ‘youth’ event on 24 August 1991, a Saturday. Neither refers expressly to a ‘youth’ event on any other date in the relevant period. The register refers to a ‘music festival’ on 27, 28 and 29 September 1991 and rehearsals over the preceding week. The diary refers to a ‘festival service’ on 29 September 1991, also a Saturday. Both the register and diary refer to music events on other dates in the relevant period. The register and diary refer to an event opening ‘mental health week’ on 20 October 1991, and an event for ‘human rights day’ on 20 December 1991, both Sundays.
The accused accepted the band likely played in the cathedral on 24 August 1991 but resisted that it did on any other date in the relevant period. The evidence as a whole supports that the band played in the cathedral on 24 August 1991. However, it does not exclude the possibility it played on other occasions when services were held in the cathedral, including 29 September 1991, 20 October 1991 and 20 December 1991. There was no evidence regarding the weather on any of these other dates. The complainant did not commit in his account to the incident occurring in autumn, and his acknowledgement of the possibility it may have occurred before Easter was not inconsistent with any prior statement in evidence. His account is therefore not necessarily inconsistent with any of the postulated dates.
The complainant recalled going to school the day after the offences. This is inconsistent with the incident occurring on 24 August 1991 or 29 September 1991 but consistent with it occurring on 20 October 1991 or 20 December 1991. The complainant’s recollection that he attended school the day after the incident is therefore not necessarily inconsistent with evidence establishing when any such incident must have occurred. Moreover, any such inconsistency would bear only on the accuracy of his recollection of events the following day and would not significantly impact the reliability of his account generally in any event.
The complainant’s mother confirmed the complainant told her at the cathedral that the dean had invited him to attend the deanery with other youths. No reason was advanced or apparent why this evidence should not be accepted. It is plausible that with his mother’s approval the complainant would have accepted such an invitation, as he had been involved since his early childhood in a church where the accused held a position of power and status. The complainant’s mother also confirmed the complainant later returned and indicated he wished to go. Her omission of the complainant’s words “I just want to get out of here” in her police statement does not indicate any significant unreliability in her evidence. No other reason is apparent why her evidence that he later returned and indicated he wished to go should not be accepted. The complainant’s mother’s evidence therefore provides compelling support for fundamental circumstances of the complainant’s account.
The complainant’s account referred to a fence and gate at the front of the deanery. Mr Green’s evidence strongly supported that a fence and gate were there in the relevant period, although he acknowledged the possibility they were not. The accused and Mr Goyette maintained neither existed at the time. Mr Goyette said the photos of areas to the front of the deanery would depict the fence had it been there. This is not self-evident from the photos. Nor does other evidence confirm it. Mr Green was not shown the photos. The church warden’s reports, indicating the deanery fence was repaired and repainted between September 1993 to February 1994, suggest it remained unrepaired through the relevant period. The complainant was not adamant but rather expressed merely a recollection that there was a fence and gate, and so his account is not necessarily inconsistent with other evidence about it in any event.
The complainant described the accused using a key to unlock the front doors to the deanery. The accused confirmed he had keys to the deanery throughout the relevant period. The complainant described double doors opening together wider than a normal door. The accused referred in his evidence to front “doors”. Double doors were in place at the time of the inspection. However, there was no evidence they were therea in the relevant period.
The complainant’s account did not refer to any sign of repair work inside the deanery. The accused described the damage to the deanery as “fairly catastrophic”. However, Mr Tilse described the extent of damage as “bits and pieces” rather than “total”. Photographs of the deanery’s interior before its repair are consistent with this. Evidence supports that the deanery was undergoing repair in the latter half of 1991 when documentary evidence indicates events occurred in the cathedral where the band may have played. However, there is no evidence regarding the sequence in which the repairs were conducted and the location of any equipment and materials within the deanery during this time. Accordingly, the accused’s account is not necessarily inconsistent with evidence regarding the deanery’s interior at the time of the incident.
The accused and Mr Goyette continued to reside in the deanery after the earthquake in late 1989 until mid-1991, a period of at least a year and a half. Photos of its interior show furnishings remained in place before it was repaired. The accused and Mr Goyette said all furniture was removed from the upstairs of the deanery during repairs. Mr Tilse said about 50% of it remained. However, the complainant described the deanery as “very empty” in any event. Accordingly, his account is not inconsistent with evidence regarding its contents at the time of the incident. Nor is the complainant’s account less plausible if the deanery were uninhabited at the time, as it would have provided a convenient opportunity for sexual offences to be committed without risk of detection.
The complainant’s account of a right turn into the room where the offences were said to have taken place is inconsistent with the deanery’s layout. This was a matter of some significance in assessing the reliability of his account. The route from the front door to the room proceeds through a foyer, left around an internal stairwell and into a small hallway, right into another small hallway, then left into the room. However, it is a reasonable inference the right turn he recalled was that from the first small hallway into the second small hallway. Further, his account of a left turn at the end of a hallway when he departed is consistent with the route he would have taken. In these circumstances, the inconsistency between his recollection of a right turn into the room and the deanery’s layout does not demonstrate significant unreliability in his account.
The complainant’s account of the room’s dimensions and window location was consistent with facts. His reference in evidence to a wardrobe and gesture with his left hand behind him was consistent with the position of the wardrobe at the time of inspection. However, there was no evidence regarding its existence in the relevant period.
The complainant’s account included reference to pictures of naked boys on the room’s walls. The accused and Mr Goyette denied such pictures were ever in the deanery. There was no other evidence of such pictures. This is also a matter of some significance. As already noted, evidence supports that the deanery was undergoing repair in the latter half of 1991 when documentary evidence indicates events in the cathedral occured when the band may have played. Mr Goyette did not reside in the deanery during this period. The accused maintained the room required repair. The plan details repairs required to areas of the deanery but not to the room. Mr Tilse gave no evidence of repairs to it. No other evidence suggests workers accessed the room during this time. The complainant described the pictures as small. Any such pictures could be readily installed, removed and stored. Neither the absence of other evidence of such pictures nor the fact workers were undertaking repairs at the deanery during the relevant period necessarily renders the complainant’s account implausible.
The accused denied knowing or ever meeting the complainant. However, Mr Eve confirmed the accused greeted the complainant with his full given name. No reason was advanced or apparent why this evidence should not be accepted. This evidence therefore tends to undermine the accused’s denial of any knowledge of the complainant.
The complainant’s and his mother’s accounts of sighting the accused at Broadmeadow station about a year after the incident were largely consistent. The accused denied any recollection of seeing the complainant at Broadmeadow station. He and Mr Goyette suggested the accused was unlikely to have attended it in the early 1990s. However, both acknowledged XPT services departed from Broadmeadow for Sydney at the time and revealed familiarity with these services. Ultimately, both acknowledged the possibility the accused attended the station to see off or pick up Mr Goyette. No reason was advanced or apparent why the evidence of the complainant and his mother about this encounter should not be accepted. The complainant’s mother’s account of the complainant’s demeanour on sighting the accused is consistent with distress arising from an unexpected reminder of a traumatic event.
The complainant’s continuing participation in church activities following the incident is not inconsistent with the truthfulness of his account given the nature and extent of his previous involvement with the church.
The complainant’s mother’s account of the complainant’s demeanour at the time of his complaint to her is consistent with distress that might reasonably be expected in recounting such a traumatic event. The complainant’s wife’s account of the complainant’s demeanour at the time of his complaint to her is also consistent with such distress. The terms and manner of the complaints are such as to warrant weight as evidence in addition to that of the complainant notwithstanding that the complaints were made long after the alleged offences.
The complainant’s complaints referenced various features of his account. His complaints to his mother, wife, Mr Eve, Mr Hann, Mr Warland, Robert Wall and Joshua Wall were all to the effect that the accused had sexually abused him. His complaints to his wife, Mr Eve, Mr Warland and Robert Wall all referred to it happening at the deanery. His complaints to Robert and Joshua Wall referred to his invitation to the deanery and his surprise when no one else was there. His complaint to Mr Warland referenced a shirt being pulled over his head. Mr Warland thought this may have concerned an unrelated incident but it is reasonable to infer this reflects his confusion rather than the complainant’s inconsistency. The fact that the complainant referred to different features in these complaints is more consistent with him recounting his recollections at the time of the complaints than with his repetition of a rehearsed narrative. The complainant’s complaints are substantially consistent with his account in evidence. That consistency supports his credibility.
The timing and circumstances of his complaints does not indicate any unreliability in his account. A sexual offence victim may of course have good reasons for delay in complaint. Evidence establishes reasons for the complainant’s delay in complaint in any event. His initial denial then complaint to his wife is consistent with internal conflict over disclosure of an intimately traumatic experience. His wife’s observations of his demeanour at the time of his complaint to her are consistent with this. He said he thought no one would believe him. The terms of the accused’s alleged warning immediately after the incident were such as to engender such a belief given their respective status.
My assessment of the credibility of critical witnesses was also significant in resolving factual issues.
The complainant appeared calm, shy and quiet in evidence. He appeared genuinely to access his recollection when asked about details and unguarded in his responses. He did not hesitate when providing detail or acknowledging when he could not. He was visibly embarrassed and distressed at times, particularly when recounting physical aspects of the incident, and their aftermath, such as his bleeding and crying in the shower. This appeared congruent with genuine experience of such events. He demonstrated at times with physical movements as he described actions in evidence, such as his shirt being pulled over his head, and often made apparently subconscious physical movements when recounting the incident. These movements appeared consistent with physical experience of such events.
His account of the incident comprised miscellaneous details, such as the acts required to remove his clothing. This appeared consistent with genuine recollection of such events rather than fabrication. He recounted perceptions of sounds, such as the accused’s belt being undone and pants falling to the ground, as well as scents, such as those of incense and the room, and observations, such as blood in his underpants and in the water at the bottom of the shower. This evidence appeared to reflect genuine recollection of such perceptions.
He did not seek to advance and conceded matters against his perceived interest. He did not seek to justify his failure to flee or resist, or his fear on encountering the accused again despite the presence of others. He acknowledged he was unsure about matters, such as whether the pictures of naked boys were colour or black and white, or the position of the accused behind him during the acts.
The clear impression conveyed throughout his evidence was that he was being truthful.
The complainant’s mother also appeared calm, quiet and considered in her evidence. She too appeared to access actual recollections in her response to questions about details of events. She did not seek to justify a position or advance her son’s perceived interests and conceded matters where appropriate. Nothing about the manner in which she gave her evidence suggested it was untruthful.
Accordingly, no reasons exist for concern regarding the credibility of these critical witnesses in the Crown case such as to significantly affect the weight their evidence warrants.
The accused’s demeanours in interview with police and in evidence were disparate. He was compliant in the former but defiant in the latter, and he became particularly combative when tested. He sought to advance his interests and not to concede matters against them. He sought to qualify and caveat his answers, such as with the retort “anything is possible”. There were inconsistencies in his evidence. In response to the suggestion he attended Broadmeadow railway station, he proffered reasons for its improbability, though later conceded reasons existed for such an attendance. He purported to recall the service in the cathedral on 24 August 1991 and a visitor’s comment regarding incense used in it but maintained he had no recollection of the band playing though later acknowledged it did, and that this was an irregular occurrence.
He denied in interview with police that youth bands played in the cathedral in 1991. He said in evidence that he did not recall the band playing at the time of the interview. Accordingly, the assertion was not clearly a lie. However, when questioned about its accuracy, he maintained it was correct, justifying this with comments that the band was not “a permanent fixture” and did not play “from time to time” in the cathedral, although the questioning in the interview had not suggested either. It was evident the accused knew when he was questioned about the assertion in the interview that it was incorrect but sought to justify it as he perceived an interest in maintaining it was correct. This demonstrated a determination not to concede matters against his perceived interests at the expense of truthfulness.
Mr Goyette appeared uncomfortable in evidence. He repeatedly clasped then unclasped his hands, crossed then uncrossed his arms, and sat back and forth in his chair. He acknowledged he had been the accused’s partner since 1973 [172] and that he would do what he could to assist the accused, but denied he would give untruthful evidence. [173] His partiality manifested in references to the accused’s legal representatives with first-person pronouns [174] , involvement in searches for evidence, and discussion of issues the subject of his evidence with the accused.
172. T235.05
173. T241.22
174. T241.09, T273.08
Mr Goyette acknowledged discussing the issue of the deanery’s gate with the accused about a week before giving evidence but maintained there was “no collusion” about it. [175] The accused also acknowledged speaking with him about it but denied doing so during the previous seven days. [176] He acknowledged discussing the issue of furniture in the room with the accused since the trial commenced. [177] The accused also acknowledged speaking with him about the issue of furniture removal during the trial. [178] Mr Goyette acknowledged discussing the issue of a chair in the room with the accused since the trial commenced. [179] However, the accused maintained he did not believe he had spoken with Mr Goyette about this at all. [180] Mr Goyette denied discussing the issue of Broadmeadow station with the accused during the trial but said they did when the allegation was initially made, although the conversation was “very limited”. [181] He acknowledged discussing the issue of pictures in the room with the accused since the trial commenced. [182] The accused acknowledged speaking with Mr Goyette about this issue within the previous month. [183] However, he denied any recollection of doing so in the previous seven days. [184] He said each had asked the other whether they remembered that and each had said he did not. [185]
175. T238
176. T167.05
177. T241.42
178. TT168
179. T241.42
180. T168.49
181. T499.38-39
182. T240.24
183. T166.31
184. T167.19
185. T166.22
Mr Goyette’s discussion of these issues with the accused demonstrates the extent of his partiality. It also affects the reliability of their respective evidence regarding those issues, as neither necessarily represents an independent recollection.
Accordingly, a number of reasons exist for concerns regarding the credibility of witnesses in the defence case, such as to significantly affect the weight their evidence warrants.

Conclusions

These matters led me to the following conclusions regarding the fundamental issues in the trial.

The complainant’s account that he attended the cathedral on an occasion in the relevant period is accepted. His mother’s evidence supports it. Complaint evidence supports it. Documentary evidence is at least consistent with it. Nothing in the defence case was ultimately inconsistent with it.
The complainant’s account that the accused invited him to attend and that he did attend the deanery on that occasion is also accepted. His mother’s evidence supports it. Complaint evidence supports it. The accused’s denial of it gave rise to no reasonable doubt about it. Insofar as other evidence was suggested to be inconsistent with the complainant’s recollection of the deanery’s actual layout, contents or condition, these matter were either inessential to his account, or, that other evidence was unreliable.
The complainant’s account of events within the deanery on that occasion is also accepted. Complaint evidence supports it. Nothing in it is implausible. No inconsistencies in his evidence and prior statements about it were exposed. His evidence had a high degree of credibility generally and his account of those events comprised detail with the clear ring of truth. The accused’s evidence lacked credibility generally and his denial of these events left no reasonable doubt that they occurred.
In particular, the complainant’s account of the facts and circumstances the Crown relied on as constituting the elements of the alleged offences is accepted.
The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the following in respect of Count 1.
The accused played with the complainant’s testicles and penis, rubbing them back and forth. The nature of the act and the area of the body involved make this indecent according to community standards. The accused therefore committed an act of indecency.
The complainant said he did not like it when the accused played with his genitals. [186] The only reasonable inference is the complainant did not consent to the accused’s conduct and the accused knew it. [187]
186. T32.04
187. T32.05
The accused held the complainant’s shoulders and grabbed him under his armpits. [188] This constitutes a deliberate and unlawful touching of another person. The accused therefore committed an assault.
188. T32.35
The act of indecency occurred immediately before the assault. [189]
189. T32.04
The complainant’s birth certificate establishes he was aged 15 years throughout the relevant period. [190] He was therefore aged under 16 years at the time.
190. Exhibit I
Accordingly, all the elements of this offence are established beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence also established beyond reasonable doubt the following in respect of Count 2:
The accused inserted his penis in the complainant’s anus. [191] This constitutes sexual connection occasioned by penetration to any extent of the anus of a person by a part of the body of another. The accused therefore had sexual intercourse with the complainant.
191. T31.23
The complainant told the accused to stop at the time and kept moving forward to get away. [192] . The only reasonable inference is that the complainant did not consent to the sexual intercourse.
192. T31.15
The accused continued to insert his penis into the complainant’s anus thereafter. [193] The only reasonable inference is that the accused knew the complainant did not consent to the sexual intercourse.
193. TT31.25
As already noted, the complainant’s birth certificate establishes he was aged 15 years throughout the relevant period. [194] He was therefore aged under 16 years at the time.
194. Exhibit I
Accordingly, all the elements of this offence are established beyond reasonable doubt too.
I therefore find the accused: in respect of Count 1: guilty; and in respect of Count 2: guilty.

**********

Endnotes

Decision last updated: 26 July 2019

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 363
Hearing dates:	19 June 2019 – 2 July 2019
Date of orders:	26 July 2019
Decision date:	26 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Gartelmann SC DCJ
Decision:	In respect of Count 1: guilty; in respect of Count 2: guilty.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge - CRIME — Child sexual offences — Sexual intercourse with child <16 —Indecent assault — Circumstances of aggravation <16
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Graeme Lawrence (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: C Leggat SC (Crown) P Winch (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) John Anthony Solicitors (Accused)
File Number(s):	2017/00343861
Publication restriction:	Publication of any matter which identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant in these proceedings is prohibited: s 578A(2) Crimes Act 1900.