SLJ v The Queen

In SLJ v The Queen, the appellant, SLJ, appealed against his conviction and sentence for indecent acts with or in the presence of a child under 16, as well as for the sexual penetration of a child under 16. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issues before the court were whether the act of showing graphic images to the complainant constituted an indecent act and, if so, whether the act was with or in the presence of the complainant. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, particularly regarding the allegation of digital penetration.

The court examined whether the showing of graphic images to the complainant constituted an indecent act. It held that, while the images did not involve physical contact, they had a clear sexual connotation and could be considered indecent in context. The court distinguished between an act 'with' and 'in the presence of' a child, finding that the act in question fell within the latter category. The court held that the images had a clear sexual connotation and were shown for the appellant’s sexual gratification, even if it was not the primary intent. It concluded that the act was indecent in the context in which it occurred. The court also found that the complainant’s allegation of digital penetration was voluntary and consistent with her evidence, despite the appellant’s claims of leading police questioning. The verdicts were deemed safe and satisfactory.

The court found that the showing of graphic images to the complainant constituted an indecent act in the presence of the complainant. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the act was not indecent because it did not involve physical contact. The court emphasised that the act was indecent given the sexual nature of the images and the context in which they were shown. The court also held that the verdicts regarding the sexual penetration of the child were safe and satisfactory, noting the consistency of the complainant’s evidence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.