R v Maynard
[2019] SADC 170
•15 November 2019
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MAYNARD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 170
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge S David
15 November 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
Accused charged with three counts of Indecent Assault - accused maternal great uncle of the complainant - offending alleged to have occurred in 2005 - complainant aged about 12 years old - other uncharged acts of touching - accused denied offences in record of interview in 2018 - significant forensic disadvantage.
Verdicts: Not guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 56, referred to.
R v MAYNARD
[2019] SADC 170
The accused, Leslie Maynard, is charged with three counts of Indecent Assault contrary to s 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. He is charged on Information dated 15 October 2019 as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Leslie Elzard Maynard between the 10th day of February 2005 and the 10th day of February 2009 at Blyth, indecently assaulted [KG] by touching her vagina.
This is a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Leslie Elzard Maynard between the 10th day of February 2005 and the 10th day of February 2009 at Blyth, indecently assaulted [KG] by touching her breast.
This is a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Leslie Elzard Maynard between the 10th day of February 2005 and the 10th day of February 2009 at Blyth, indecently assaulted [KG] by touching her breast.
This is a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and the trial initially proceeded with a jury. During the complainant’s evidence, there was a mistrial and the jury was discharged. KG’s evidence had been recorded. Prior to the commencement of the re-trial (which occurred on the following day), the accused elected for trial by judge alone. Without objection, the audio-visual recording of KG’s evidence was tendered along with the associated exhibits. The matter proceeded by way of trial by judge alone. I now publish reasons for the verdicts I deliver.
Overview
The accused is the maternal great-uncle of the complainant. KG was born on 11 February 1993. During 2005, KG was aged 11 turning 12 and she was living with her maternal grandmother and younger brother at Blyth. Her younger sister moved into the home later the following year. The accused lived close by in Blyth, and KG and her siblings would spend time with the accused and his wife.
On an evening in 2005, KG walked with the accused to his home. Upon arriving, the accused offered to give KG a massage as she had been complaining that her legs were sore from netball. Whilst doing so, the accused allegedly indecently touched KG on her vagina on the outside of her underwear (the first count). Later that year, the accused is alleged to have played ‘tickle chasey’ games with KG at his home during which he would touch her breasts on the outside of her clothing. KG recounted two specific occasions when she alleged this touching occurred: once in his daughter’s bedroom (the second count) and on another occasion in his kitchen (the third count). There were other unspecified occasions when the accused played the tickle chasey game and touched her breasts which are not the subject of any charges.
KG also alleged that when she was 15 or 16 years old, the accused touched her upper thigh whilst teaching her to drive in his car. She said this occurred on numerous occasions. Those incidents were not the subject of any charges.
The accused participated in a record of interview with the police on 12 January 2018. He admitted playing tickle chasey games with KG but denied having ever indecently touched KG on any occasion.
The accused did not give evidence or call any evidence at trial. Counsel for the accused submitted that KG could not be relied upon as a credible and reliable witness, and the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the charged offences.
Elements of the offence
An indecent assault is an assault accompanied by, or committed in, circumstances of indecency. To prove the offence of indecent assault, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following two legal elements or ingredients.
First, that the accused committed an assault on KG. An assault is an intentional and unlawful application of force to the person of another. The force does not have to be great. A simple touching is enough. The touching, however, must be deliberate, as opposed to accidental, and it must be without lawful excuse. In this case, the prosecution alleged that the accused indecently assaulted KG by touching her vagina whilst she was lying face down on his bed, under the guise of a massage (the first count). He is further alleged to have indecently assaulted KG by touching her breasts in his daughter’s bedroom (the second count) and on another occasion by touching her breasts when he had pinned her against the fridge in his kitchen (the third count).
The second element which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the relevant assault was committed in circumstances of indecency, those circumstances of indecency having a sexual connotation. Whether an assault is indecent, with a sexual connotation, is a factual matter to be determined by reference to reasonable contemporary community standards. In this case, the alleged offending was committed by the complainant’s great-uncle when she was aged 12 and involved the touching of her vagina and breasts. The prosecution relied upon those features of the alleged touching as amounting to circumstances of indecency.
It is impossible, as a matter of law, for a person aged under 17 to consent to an act of indecency, so whether KG consented to any of the alleged acts of indecent assault is irrelevant.
It is impermissible to reason that because the accused is guilty of one of the counts, if I so find, he is therefore necessarily guilty of the other counts. Each count must be considered quite separately. The charges do not necessarily rise and fall together. However, if I am not satisfied of the credibility or reliability of KG on any one count, then her lack of credibility or reliability on that count, is relevant to the question of KG’s credibility or reliability on the other counts.
The issue in dispute in this trial was whether the prosecution had proved that the accused touched KG in the manner she described on any of the charged occasions, that is, the first element of each offence.
Legal Directions
I apply the following principles in reaching my verdicts.
The accused is presumed innocent unless and until his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the charges lies wholly upon the prosecution. The accused is not obliged to prove anything.
Nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt will suffice. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or to show that the accused is probably guilty. Before the accused is convicted of any offence, the prosecution must have proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the offence. In these reasons, if the words ‘proved’, ‘established’, or ‘satisfied’ are used, this means to a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. If there is an explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused, or there is uncertainty as to where the truth lies, then the accused must be found not guilty.
The accused elected not to give evidence or call any witnesses. That was his right. The accused’s silence cannot be used against him. It is impermissible to treat his silence as an admission or to use it to fill any gaps in the prosecution evidence. The accused’s silence does not make the prosecution evidence stronger or more persuasive. To use the accused's silence against him in practical terms would deprive him of his right to remain silent. It is for the prosecution to prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt.
KG gave evidence of other uncharged occasions when the accused played a tickle chasey game with her during which he touched her breasts. KG also said the accused touched her thigh on numerous occasions when she was about 15 years old. The admission of that evidence of discreditable conduct was not objected to by counsel for the accused. The uncharged incidents of indecent touching, can be used permissibly, if it is accepted that they were committed by the accused.
First, the evidence of uncharged acts provides the complete context in which it is said that the charged offences occurred. The whole of the allegations made by KG against the accused is relevant to assess KG’s broader relationship with the accused and, in turn, the charged acts. More particularly, the evidence of the numerous occasions of touching during other unspecified tickle chasey games may explain why KG might be confused about some details of the second and third counts, that is, because they occurred against the background of other incidents of similar offending.
Second, the uncharged acts are relevant as evidence of the accused's ongoing sexual attraction to KG and his willingness to act upon it. To use the evidence in this way, I would first need to accept that the uncharged acts had in fact occurred, and that the accused's conduct in committing those alleged uncharged acts evinced a sexual attraction by the accused to KG, and a willingness to act on that attraction, which is in turn relevant to the question of whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charged offences.
The evidence of the uncharged acts may also assist the accused in showing inconsistencies or unreliability or inherent improbability in the evidence of KG, thereby raising doubts about her evidence on the charged offences.
KG’s evidence of uncharged acts cannot be used in the following impermissible manner. It would be wrong to reason that having accepted that the accused committed any of the uncharged indecent touching of KG, the accused should necessarily be convicted of any, or all, of the charges. It would be impermissible to substitute an uncharged incident for one of the charged acts. It would also be wrong to conclude from the uncharged incidents that the accused is a man of general bad character and therefore more likely to be guilty of any of the charged offences.
There is no evidence independent of KG’s evidence to support the charged offences. Consequently, the complainant’s evidence must be carefully scrutinised before it can be relied upon in support of the charged offences.
Special arrangements were put in place for KG without objection. The court was closed during her evidence, and a screen placed between herself and the accused whilst she was giving evidence. KG was also accompanied by a court companion. It is impermissible to draw any adverse inference against the accused because of such arrangements. The use of those arrangements must not cause any extra or undue weight to be attached to KG’s evidence.
The charged offences are alleged to have occurred in 2005, so there has been a period of about 14 years between the alleged offending and the charges proceeding to trial. The accused was arrested by police on 12 January 2018. There is no evidence that he was aware of the specific allegations prior to that date. Such a lengthy delay has resulted in a significant forensic disadvantage to the accused in that there are significant difficulties for the accused in challenging and responding to the allegations said to have occurred so long in the past. The significant forensic disadvantages are as follows:
(i)There was no independent support for KG's account. The overall delay in the matter proceeding to trial has inevitably led to KG being unable to remember some details of the events surrounding the charged offences. The effect of the lengthy delay on KG’s memory has disadvantaged the accused because he has lost some ability to test the detail of KG’s version of events.
(ii)From the accused’s perspective, if there had been a timely trial, he would have been in a better position to remember back to the relevant period and recall any specific details of his movements or behaviour at the time. If the charged offences had proceeded to trial in a timely manner the accused may have had access to records relating to his pest and weed control business which may have documented his work activities and movements and placed him in a better position to produce evidence discounting KG’s version of events, although, it is not for the accused to prove anything.
Those significant forensic disadvantages to the accused must be considered when assessing whether the prosecution has proved its case. The accused cannot be convicted of any of the charged offences unless the court is satisfied of the truthfulness and reliability of KG’s evidence bearing in mind the significant forensic disadvantages to the accused caused by the delay in the allegations proceeding to trial.
I now turn to the prosecution evidence in respect of the charged offences. Again, the contentious issue at trial was whether the prosecution had proved that the accused committed the alleged touching the subject of each charge.
KG
KG is now aged 26 years old. She moved in with her grandmother at the age of 11. At that time, her younger brother also lived with her grandmother. KG said they initially lived at Port Wakefield and then moved to an address on Charles Street Blyth in either late 2004 or early 2005. The family later moved to an address on Guildford Street, Blyth.[1] Whilst KG lived in Blyth, the accused lived with his wife on Moore Street, Blyth. KG lived in Blyth until 2010 when she was aged 17.
[1] Exhibit P7, para 3: it was an agreed fact BG entered a residential tenancy agreement for [ ] Charles Street Blyth with the lease commencing on 7 May 2005 and for [ ] Guildford Street Blyth with the lease commencing on 10 November 2006.
KG said the accused and his wife often looked after her. KG said that in her younger years, and before high school, she had a ‘really good relationship’ with the accused and his wife. The accused lived a short distance from her and she would often feed the animals at his property.
KG described an incident which she referred to as the ‘massage incident’. She said the incident occurred when she was aged about 12, in the winter of 2005. This was the first year she played netball for the Port Wakefield Netball Club and the same year that they moved from Port Wakefield to Blyth.
KG said that the accused was visiting her grandmother’s house for a coffee, and due to his poor health, her grandmother asked her to walk the accused home. She did so. No-one else was at the accused’s house when they arrived. Once at the accused’s house, KG sat on the lounge room floor. She was chatting with the accused and watching a crime show that was on the television. KG said that she made a comment about her legs being sore. She said the accused offered to give her a massage. She refused multiple times, however, the accused insisted that she go into his bedroom. She lay down on the bed on her stomach. The accused started massaging her ankles. He asked her to open her legs wider, however she was quite stiff and rigid so the accused had to push her legs apart. KG said she felt his hands on the inside of her legs. She clenched her arms underneath herself. KG said the accused placed his entire hand over her genital area with his fingers facing towards her belly button. The accused then squeezed deeply and quite harshly. The accused said: ‘I’ll massage your fanny for you’ in a joking way, whilst touching her genitals.[2] KG said that when the accused stopped massaging her, he acted as if nothing had happened, and she also acted as if nothing had happened. The massage incident was the subject of the first count.
[2] 21/10/19, T71, 73.
KG also gave evidence about a tickle chasey game. She said that the accused would chase her around his house and tickle her rib area and breasts. He would apologise and say, ‘don’t tell my wife, it doesn’t mean anything’ or words to that effect.[3] KG said the tickle chasey game occurred over ‘probably a couple of years, and sporadically, so more often in the school holidays or say if Aunty Veronica was away’.[4] KG said it became less frequent as she became older and by the age of 15 it had stopped.[5]
[3] 21/10/19, T75.
[4] 21/10/19, T74-75.
[5] 21/10/19, T81.
KG recalled two tickle chasey incidents which are the subject of the second and third counts. The first incident took place during the daytime and involved the accused chasing KG into his daughter’s bedroom and tickling her so that she fell backwards onto the bed. KG said the accused then tickled her around her breast area on top of her clothing. She became upset and the accused stopped. KG described the tickling as a ‘rough tickling’ centred around the front of her breasts in an upward scooping motion. The accused would start tickling her in the rib area and move upwards towards the breast area. That alleged incident is the subject of the second count.
KG also said there was another occasion when the accused had been chasing her around his house and they stopped near the fridge in the kitchen. Her back was against the fridge with the accused blocking her with his body. She recalled the fridge magnets pressing into her back and some falling onto the floor. KG said that the accused was tickling her ribs and breasts. She was trying to defend herself by moving her arms to block his hands. KG said that she became upset and the accused stopped. KG gave evidence that the accused may have told her not to tell ‘Aunty Veronica’, however, she cannot be sure. That alleged incident is the subject of the third count.
KG said both tickling incidents occurred after the massage incident and when she was aged from 12 to 15 years old.
KG also gave evidence that when she was aged 15 or so, the accused gave her driving lessons in his car. KG said that when she did something correctly, he grabbed and squeezed the top of her left leg near her genital area and he kept his hand there while telling her that she had done a good job. KG said that this happened every time that she would practice driving with the accused.
In cross-examination, KG agreed that her grandmother was verbally and physically abusive to her and her siblings.
KG agreed that she initially told the police that the tickle chasey incidents the subject of the second and third counts occurred first in time, that is, before the massage incident the subject of the first count. By way of explanation, KG said that she has spoken to the police on numerous occasions, and that it has taken her some time to figure out what happened.
KG agreed that she may have moved from Port Wakefield to Blyth in May 2005 and that she only had regular contact with the accused after she moved to Blyth. KG also said that the massage incident occurred during the netball season, and she ‘estimated’ it occurred in June or July 2005. KG agreed that if that was so, the first count would have occurred within a month or two of her having moved to Blyth.
As to the massage incident, KG agreed that she first mentioned that she was wearing a dressing gown during her evidence in chief. KG clarified that she cannot recall if she was wearing a dressing gown, but by reference to the weather and what she usually wore, she believed she was wearing a dressing gown. KG agreed that in her statement given to police in November 2015, she said ‘it was getting quite late and was a school night’ and that she was ‘only wearing a nightie and underwear’.[6] KG disagreed with the proposition that she made up that she was wearing a dressing gown as it would be a bit strange to be wearing only a nightie in the middle of winter walking the streets. KG said that she was now ‘better with dealing with what has happened, therefore it is not so confused in [her] head’.[7]
[6] 21/10/19, T91.
[7] 21/10/19, T92.
It was suggested to KG that her evidence about how the accused touched her vagina during the massage incident was different to what she had told police in her earlier statements. KG agreed that she told a police officer in November 2015 that she felt ‘a touch on top of my genitals on the outside of my underwear’.[8] KG agreed that in her second statement to police given in August 2017 she said that the accused rubbed her on the outside of her underwear over her genitals. KG agreed that in her third statement to police made in September 2018 she said that the accused had a hand under her nightie and he rubbed over her genitals on the outside of her underwear, and the accused ‘kind of squeezed and jostled me around a few times with his hand near her genitals’.[9] KG also agreed that in an affidavit sworn on 14 October 2019, she said that she ‘remembers the inside of Les’s hand, what felt like the inside of Les’s fingers, touching on the outside of my underwear and on top of my vagina ... for about three seconds’.[10]
[8] 21/10/19, T95.
[9] 21/10/19, T93.
[10] 21/10/19, T94.
KG accepted that prior to her evidence in chief, she had not described the touching of her vagina as a ‘harsh squeeze’. KG said that the words ‘harsh squeeze’ may have been too strong and explained that she said that because she was nervous.
KG rejected the proposition that she was embellishing and exaggerating the massage incident. KG denied she was lying. She explained that she had used different words on different occasions to explain the same act of touching by the accused.
KG was also referred to her evidence in chief that she was sitting on the lounge room floor and watching a crime show when the accused told her he would massage her legs. KG agreed that she had not said that in any of her earlier statements to police.
As to the tickle chasey games, KG said she never saw the accused play this game with any other children, and that the accused would not play the game at her grandmother’s house. When the accused did play the game it was throughout the whole of the accused’s house and neither her grandmother nor great aunt was home at the time.
In respect of the second count, and KG’s evidence that the accused looked happy and excited during the incident, KG agreed that she did not say this to the police in any of her earlier statements. KG agreed that she cannot now recall what the accused or she were wearing during the incident; why she was at the accused’s house on that occasion; and whether the alleged incident occurred on a weekday or a weekend.
As to the third count, KG agreed that in her statement given in September 2018, she said that at the end of this incident the accused hugged her. KG agreed that she did not say this in her evidence in chief. KG explained that the accused may have hugged her after the touching against the fridge but she had not mentioned the hug as she did not think it was as serious or useful evidence. KG said that she only has a vague recollection of the hug, and when giving her evidence in chief, she was ‘thinking about the tickling and groping and not necessarily the hug incident’.[11] KG said she is now ‘not a 100 percent sure on the hug’.[12]
[11] 21/10/19, T114.
[12] 21/10/19, T115.
KG agreed that she did not specifically mention the touching against the fridge (the third count) in her initial statement to police made in November 2015.
In respect of the uncharged touching during driving lessons, KG said she wanted to learn how to drive a manual car but denied that it was she who had asked the accused to teach her how to drive. KG said that the accused was the only person who would let her drive his car, and whilst her grandmother owned a Ford manual car, she was not allowed to drive it.
KG said that the accused touched her every time he took her for a driving lesson. The witness agreed that she told the police in a statement made in November 2015, that the accused ‘would put his right hand on my thigh and tell me that I had a done a good job’.[13] KG agreed that she said in her statement signed on 16 November 2017 ‘that there were a few instances where he would rub my left leg up too high and tell me I had done a good job’.[14] KG agreed that in her statement made in September 2018, she said: ‘he would often move his hand right up to the top of my thigh like he was seeing how close he could get to my genitals without me reacting’.[15] KG agreed that in an affidavit sworn on 14 October 2019, she said: ‘when he would do this … his fingers would be inside my leg, brushing near and over my genital area’.[16] KG disagreed with the proposition that she had gradually embellished her account as to what occurred during the driving lessons over time. She disagreed that she was lying.
[13] 22/10/19, T13.
[14] 22/10/19, T14.
[15] 22/10/19, T14.
[16] 22/10/19, T13-15.
KG disagreed with the suggestion that during the driving lessons her brother was also in the car, seated on the side opposite to her, with the accused seated in the middle. She said that it was a manual car and therefore the accused could not sit in the middle as that is where the gearstick would be.
It was suggested to KG, and KG agreed, that she had been touched inappropriately by her mother’s friends. KG said the touching did not occur in the context of being tickled. KG said she did not report the matter to the police as she was very young at the time and she did not have enough details to do so. KG disagreed with the suggestion that she had substituted the accused for other persons who had inappropriately touched her. She disagreed and said that the events were five or more years apart.
Other prosecution evidence
The witness statements of BG[17] (KG’s grandmother and the accused’s sister) and Veronica Maynard[18] (the accused’s wife) were tendered to the court. BG said in her initial statement that, to her knowledge, KG did not spend any unsupervised time with the accused. BG said that she had, and continues to have, a strong relationship with the accused. In her addendum statement, BG said that whilst she did occasionally yell at KG, she never physically or verbally abused her.
[17] Exhibits P5 (sworn on 15 January 2019) and P5A (sworn on 15 October 2019).
[18] Exhibits P6 (sworn on 12 July 2019) and P6A (sworn on 16 October 2019).
Mrs Veronica Maynard said in her initial statement that: ‘Generally Les and I were together with the kids when the kids visited. I know that Les would take [Z] cutting wood and doing man stuff but that was the only time Les spent alone with the kids’.[19] In her addendum statement, Mrs Maynard expanded by saying: ‘When [BG] and the kids moved from Charles Street to Guildford Street, Les and I were looking after my sister’s daughter [S]. When [BG] and the kids moved to Guildford Street, [KG] would regularly come and visit [S] and my daughter [T]. I remember KG would visit [S] and [T], not so much Les and I’.[20] Mrs Maynard also said that she never witnessed BG abusing KG.
[19] Exhibit P6, p5.
[20] Exhibit P6A, p2.
Record of interview
The accused participated in a record of interview with the police on 12 January 2018 at the Clare police station. A disc of that interview[21] was tendered to the court along with a transcript of the interview.[22] In that interview, the accused described his relationship with KG as ‘really just uncle relationship really just trying to help her out take her to you know do things ... just done things that a normal person would do with them you know go out and do a bit of fun things with them that’s about it’.[23] The accused said he took KG out in his utility and gave her driving lessons, and they would go on outings as a family with his wife and KG’s siblings. The accused agreed he played a tickle chasey game with KG around his house. He said tickle chasey involved ‘grabbing her under her arms and on her ribs and give her a tickle that’s about all tickling her feet or something like that’.[24] The accused said he also played tickle chasey games with KG at her grandmother’s house in front of her grandmother, BG. The accused denied the alleged offending.
[21] Exhibit P4.
[22] Exhibit P4A.
[23] Exhibit P4, P4A, p5.
[24] Exhibit P4, P4A, p6.
Assessment of KG’s evidence
The prosecution case relied on KG being accepted as a truthful and reliable witness. There was no evidence independent of KG to support her allegations. I must accept the evidence of KG beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused of the charged offences.
KG presented as a thoughtful and articulate witness. She did not strike me as a person deliberately telling untruths. However, there were features of KG’s evidence which caused me to question the reliability of her account and which ultimately led me to conclude that I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the charged offences.
First, KG gave evidence that there were numerous occasions of uncharged touching during the tickle chasey games and those incidents, along with the charged offences, occurred when she was alone with the accused. Yet, BG in her tendered statement said that there were no occasions when KG was supervised alone by the accused and his wife. There was nothing in BG’s statement which suggested she was lying or mistaken about that matter. BG, whilst close to her brother, was also KG’s grandmother. BG did not attempt to depict KG in an unfavourable light. Indeed, she referred to KG as having been ‘a very well behaved and well-mannered girl who was always very honest.’[25] I could not readily discount BG’s evidence as to the lack of opportunity to commit these offences. Further, Mrs Maynard said in her statement that she and the accused, generally, were together with the ‘kids’ when they visited. Thus, it appeared there was limited opportunity for the accused to have committed the numerous occasions of uncharged indecent touching, and charged offending, as alleged by KG.
[25] Exhibit P5, Affidavit of BG sworn on 15 January 2019, para 17.
Second, it seemed unlikely that the accused would have commenced indecently touching KG with the massage incident within a month or two of her having moved to Blyth, given there was little recent contact before that time, and no context or grooming leading up to that alleged incident. KG was clear in her evidence that the tickle chasey games started after the massage incident.
Third, there were several prior inconsistent statements by KG which individually and collectively undermined her reliability as a witness. More specifically, KG initially told police that the indecent touching during the tickle chasey games occurred before the massage incident. Further, KG’s description of how the accused touched her during the massage incident changed in her various statements to police and in court, as did KG’s description of the uncharged touching of her thigh during the driving lessons. Whilst I acknowledge the difficulties for KG in consistently having to describe incidents from her childhood, on numerous occasions to different police officers, her prior inconsistent statements on those topics did undermine her reliability as a witness.
I have also had regard to the accused’s record interview and his denials in that interview of the allegations. He appeared genuinely taken aback and distressed by the allegations. I could not discount his denials as a reasonable possibility.
There has also been a considerable delay of about 14 years between the alleged offences having occurred and the charges proceeding to trial. The accused was not made aware of the allegations until 2018. I must take those significant forensic disadvantages I have outlined earlier into account in deciding whether the prosecution has proved the case.
For those reasons, I find myself unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the charged offences.
Verdict
I find the accused not guilty of the charged offences counts 1, 2 and 3.
0
0
1