R v Neil Duncan

The evidence

1. Evidence in the trial was received in various forms. Police Joint Investigation and Response Teams (JIRT) interviews with child witnesses were played into evidence, the previous evidence given by various witnesses in the first trial was tendered and played into evidence, documents were tendered including some Agreed Facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 and oral evidence was given by a number of witnesses including further oral evidence by the complainant RN.
2. The Crown case was that at some time in 2019 when the accused went on horse riding and camping trips in the Kosciuszko National Park with RN and (redacted) he sexually touched RN on her breasts (Count 1) and sexually touched RN through her clothes on her genitals (Count 2). It is alleged that the offending occurred at some time in 2019, the date of which RN was unable to give evidence about precisely.
3. It was an agreed fact that RN was born on 8 March 2005. Accordingly she had her 14th birthday on 8 March 2019.
4. Part of the investigative and procedural history of this matter was also the subject of agreed facts including the following: 1. on 23 March 2019 JIRT received a referral in relation to HU; 2. on 11 November 2019 SC made a complaint to the police which was referred to JIRT on 14 November 2019; 3. on 6 November 2020 the accused was arrested and charged with sexually touching SC; 4. on 10 December 2020 JIRT received a referral in relation to RN; 5. on 15 December 2020 OO made a complaint to the police which was referred to JIRT on 31 December 2020; 6. on or about 7 January 2021 the accused was charged with sexually touching OO; 7. on or about 4 March 2021 the accused was charged with sexually touching HU; 8. on or about 20 May 2021 the accused was charged with sexually touching RN; and 9. on 2 June 2022 the accused was acquitted of two counts of sexually touching RN. Those counts, which are the same counts I have previously referred to as the acquittal counts, related to allegations of the accused sexually touching RN whilst she was sitting near a campfire on the same night and shortly before the allegations for which the accused is presently being tried.

The JIRT interview

1. RN was interviewed by JIRT on 9 February 2021. At that time she was 15 years old.
2. During that interview RN told the police that she was there to talk to them about a sexual assault on her by the accused.
3. She told the police during that interview about her interest in horse riding. RN told the police during the interview that her mother PN and the accused were friendly. It was an agreed fact that RN was a member of a local pony club and that (redacted) Z and L, as well as the complaint witness OO, were members of that same club.
4. During the JIRT interview RN told the police that the accused taught her a lot about horse riding and gave her a lot of amazing opportunities to ride horses. She explained that the accused would take her, often with (redacted) camping and horse riding in the Kosciuszko National Park. She particularly mentioned to the police camping at a place called Pinch River. It was an agreed fact that Pinch River camping ground is approximately a 200 km drive from the accused's residence in Bega and approximately a 60 km drive from Jindabyne. RN described the camp site at Pinch River as quiet with two camping areas, one of which she described as being about 800 metres up the road from the other and enclosed with trees. She told the police that when she went camping there with the accused he would usually take her to the more enclosed area.
5. She told the police that she and the Duncans would go to that camp ground with the accused's horses and would ride horses through the bush, have barbecues and stay the night in swags. She described that initially she had "heaps of fun" during these camping and riding excursions. She said that the accused allowed her to do amazing things including taking her to horse riding competitions, allowing her to ride his horses and taking her into the bush to get new experiences. She described that initially she thought that the accused was somebody she could trust, "kind of like a friend" and that she could talk to him whenever she wanted.
6. The camping and horse riding excursions started in 2017 and continued until 2019. RN described that the accused would drive his LandCruiser from Bega to Pinch River, which she said was just out of Jindabyne, and that she sometimes sat in the front of the car and (redacted) sometimes sat in the back. She described that at some stage the accused started holding her hand as he drove to the camp site and that when he did that she froze and let it happen.
7. RN told the police that during 2017 the accused started touching her and brushing his body past hers. She said that there were occasions when the accused would touch her on the back, shoulders, stomach, bottom and sometimes try to hold her leg. RN told the police that they would go camping in the bush every weekend or every second weekend when there were no horse riding competitions.
8. RN said that on that last occasion she sat in the front of the accused's car and that he held her hand as they drove to Pinch River. She said that during that journey (redacted), who she said she was pretty sure on that last occasion was Z, was sitting in the back of the car. She said that at that time Z was probably 10 years old and that L was 7 or 9 years old.
9. RN described the setup of the camp. She said that three swags were set up next to one another underneath a tarpaulin which was attached to the accused's trailer. She described the swags as being pretty close together and that her swag would usually be in the middle, the accused's swag on her right and (redacted) swag on her left. She said that there was often little room between the swags. The accused brought swags for himself and (redacted). RN said that she brought her own swag.
10. RN said that after dinner, just as it was starting to get dark, she, the accused and Z were sitting around the camp fire when she said he stood up and put his hand down her shirt and massaged or played with her breasts. She said that she got up to get a drink and that the accused then pulled her chair closer to him and then massaged her breasts and stomach (the acquittal counts). She said that the accused's hands were underneath her shirt and her sports bra and moved in circular motions around her breasts and nipples. She said that Z was also sitting around the camp fire, but could not remember what Z was doing at the time.
11. Later that same night when RN, Z and the accused were in their swags RN said the accused put his hand into her swag and massaged her breasts, bum and around her genitals on the outside of her underpants. She described that she was wearing a pink shirt, blue tracksuit pants, a sports bra and underpants at the time. She stated that she was lying flat and felt the accused put his hand inside her swag, massage her breasts (conduct relevant to Count 1) and then she stated that his hand went down to her "V line" which she described as leading to her vagina (conduct relevant to Count 2). In describing how he touched her bottom, RN said that the accused's hand was on the outside of her clothes and was moving "kind of like drawing, I guess with his finger on my bum". In describing how the accused touched her genital area, RN said the accused's hand was on the outside of her tracksuit pants and underpants and was moving very slowly and softly. RN said that she felt uncomfortable and that she was too scared at the time to tell him to stop. She said that he stopped after "maybe about an hour or so". She explained that she was very scared and cornered when the accused was touching her in the swag and said that she felt like she was being treated like a toy and not a human being. RN also described that when the accused touched her she felt confronted and frightened and told the police she did not know what to do. She said that the Pinch River campsite was out of mobile telephone service so she could not talk to anyone.
12. RN told the police that the next day the accused tried to touch her and was always trying to be around her which she said she found scary. RN said that the accused asked her once or twice if she liked it when he touched her and she said "Yes" because she felt that she could not say no and she then walked away from him. She also told the police that the accused had often told her "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush". RN said that at the time of the interview she understood that to be a reference to what the accused did to her.
13. On the drive on the way home from Pinch River on that last occasion she again sat in the front seat and she said that on the drive home the accused held her hand and rubbed his thumb on her hand.
14. She said that the accused touched her on the breasts frequently when she went camping with him, describing it as "lots of times" but that he would not touch her when other people were there. She said that as she got older and after the last occasion she realised what the accused was trying to do and thought it was "gross". She said that the accused made her disgusted in herself, feel like she needed to scrub his touch off her and that she decided that she needed to get away from all that and start over. She said that she then decided that she did not want to go to the bush anymore. RN said that the last occasion that she went camping with the accused was in 2019 and that she decided not to go to the bush any more in the middle of 2019. She said that she thought that she would continue to ride his horses at his house and at competitions.
15. When asked if she could say when in 2019 that last camping trip occurred RN responded "not off the top of my head" but then said that she would have been 13 and she thought that it was after her birthday. She had some photographs in her phone on Snapchat taken by her and Z or L which showed what they were doing.

Complaint evidence - complaint by RN to KB

1. RN said that the first person she complained to was KB. She said that she knew that KB had started riding with the accused.
2. RN complained to KB in 2018 or 2019. RN said during the interview that she thought that the complaint to KB was before the last occasion the accused touched her. (It is to be noted that during cross-examination in the present trial RN said that the reference in the interview to the complaint occurring before the last occasion was incorrect.)
3. RN said that she and KB were hanging out at KB's house and talking about having fun on the weekend and whether or not they could stay over at one another's houses when KB said "As long as you're not going to the bush". In response to that RN said that she did not want to go to the bush anymore because she did not like being there with the accused. She said she then told KB that the accused touched her on her breasts and on her bum.

Complaint evidence - complaint by RN to OO

1. RN and OO knew one another through school and because OO also rode some of the accused's horses.
2. The JIRT interview records that RN said that she believed that she complained to OO in 2018 after the last occasion when the accused touched her. (It is to be noted that during cross-examination in the present trial RN said that the reference to 2018 in the interview was incorrect, and should have instead been 2019.) She also said that the complaint was after the first time that OO went to Pinch River with the accused.
3. RN said that she was "pretty sure" that she asked OO if the accused put his hand in her swag and touched her. She said that OO said that he did and that RN then told OO that the accused massaged her breasts, touched her bum and stomach and held her hand.

Complaint evidence - complaint by RN to PN

1. RN said that shortly after she first reported the matter to the police she complained to her mother, PN.
2. RN said that she told her mother that the accused had touched her and that when her mother made her explain in more detail she then said that he had touched her breasts, held her hand, and massaged her stomach, V-line and bum.

RN's evidence during the first trial

1. RN gave evidence at the first trial in May 2022. She was 17 years old at the time.
2. Her JIRT interview was tendered and played as her evidence in chief and she was then cross-examined by the senior counsel who then appeared for the accused.
3. In cross-examination RN said that the three swags were all close together on the last occasion when the accused touched her. She then said that she thought that the accused was lying in the middle and that she was on one side of him and (redacted) Z on the other side. She said that she believed her swag was on his right. She said that the swags may have been overlapping a little and that there was not much gap between them because they tried to get them as close as possible in case of rain.
4. When cross-examined about the zippers on the swags, RN said that she believed that there was a zipper on both sides of her swag. She said that she was in her own swag which she brought herself. When RN was shown photographs of swags that were said to have been brought on the camping trips, she said that the swags shown in the photographs were not hers and repeated that she had brought her own.
5. RN said that inside her swag was a blanket and sheets. When asked about sleeping bags she said that she used to leave the zipper of her sleeping bag undone and use it like it was a doona.
6. When cross-examined about her and Z's ages she said that she was 12 or 13 years old at the time and she thought Z was 11.
7. In relation to the acquittal counts RN said in cross examination that the accused was initially standing and reaching down the front of her shirt to touch her breasts and stomach and that when she came back after getting a drink she could not recall if the accused was then standing or sitting. She said at that time it was just starting to get dark. She said that while the accused was touching her breasts that he was talking to (redacted) Z about what they were all going to do the next day and where they were going to ride. She also said that Z was talking back. RN agreed with the proposition that Z would have seen the whole incident occur around the campfire but added that she was young and may not have known what was going on. She said that there was no conversation between her and Z during the incident around the campfire.
8. In relation to how long the touching inside the swag occurred for, she was reminded that she told the police in the interview that it went on for an hour. She responded "Yes, that's what it felt like, an hour." RN was then taken to her statement of 3 June 2021 in which she said she did not recall how long the touching went on for in the swag. When it was suggested to her that she was making things up she denied it and became upset and started crying. She said she told the police that it went for maybe an hour or so because that's what it felt like to her when he was doing it. She rejected propositions put to her that the accused did not touch her breasts, that he did not touch her in her swag and that he did not touch her at any time.
9. As RN's cross examination continued she continued to become visibly upset and was crying, prompting the trial judge in the first trial to give her a break from evidence. After RN's cross examination resumed she said that the swags were set up with her swag on the outside and the accused's swag in the middle from what she could remember.
10. RN said that she could not remember exactly how many times she went camping and horse riding with the accused to Pinch River between 2017 and 2019, adding that there were a lot of times. When it was put to her that she told the police in her interview that it was every weekend or every second weekend she said that they went often and she could not give a number but said that it was most weekends. Senior counsel then appearing for the accused then put to RN that there were only three times that she went camping with only the accused and (redacted) at Pinch River between 2017 and 2019. RN denied that suggestion saying that there were more than three times and that they went quite a few times. When cross-examined about when in 2019 the last incident occurred, RN said that she thought it was around June 2019 but added that there were dated Snapchat photographs and that she believed those photographs were from a different trip at a place other than Pinch River. RN said that she had sent screenshots of those Snapchat photographs to the police after her interview. She said that she was mistaken about those photographs being at the correct time and place when she spoke of the photographs during the interview.
11. RN said that she could not recall the date on which the last trip happened and the last occasion when the accused touched her and said that she could only remember that it was in the year 2019.
12. When cross-examined about there being no mobile coverage at Pinch River she said that if she did have coverage she would have telephoned her mother or her father. She said that she was so young she did not have any idea what the accused was doing or why it was happening.
13. On the topic of her complaint to her mother, RN said during cross-examination that she told her mother that the accused had sexually assaulted her when they were in the bush and told her that he had massaged her breasts, her stomach and that in her swag he had done the same thing. RN said that she told her mother after she told the police because she did not know how to explain it or what to say to her mother.
14. When cross-examined on the topic of her complaint to OO she said that they had known one another for 9 or 10 years through primary school and through the pony club and that she was aware that in 2019 OO was competing on one of the accused's horses named Dynamite. RN agreed with the proposition that OO was upset when the accused told her that she could no longer ride Dynamite and that Z would be riding that horse instead. She also agreed that OO had told her that she had wanted to purchase Dynamite or have it purchased for her. She agreed that OO complained to her that the accused gave her horses to train and that once trained he would then give them to (redacted) to ride. RN agreed that during her complaint to OO that she told OO "most things" that the accused had done to her.
15. Towards the end of her cross-examination she was asked questions about her complaint to KB. She agreed that the complaint to KB was not until March 2020. RN denied the proposition that she and OO got together and decided to make up stories about the accused inappropriately touching them. In response to that proposition RN said "no, definitely not."

RN's further evidence during this trial

1. In further oral evidence during the present trial RN said that she chose to first complain to KB because they had become really close and she felt comfortable bringing it up with her. She said that at the time she felt overwhelmed with what was happening to her. RN said that she had known KB at the time for possibly six months or a little longer.
2. RN said that she chose to tell OO because OO had just started riding with the Duncans and she thought that OO had just gone to Pinch River the weekend before. RN said that she was worried that what the accused had done to her would also happen to OO. She said that she felt that she needed to tell OO because she was a good friend and she would need to know if she went to the bush with the accused.
3. RN described having told her two closest friends she felt like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders, but that what the accused had done to her was still lingering in her head.
4. RN said that after telling KB and before telling OO that she would have gone on a trip or two with the accused, but that after she told OO and once OO started riding with the accused RN stopped going. She said that she continued going on trips with the accused after telling KB because the accused had previously told her that she was in a safe place and told her that she was like a daughter to him. She said that the accused had made her feel loved and comfortable and that she treated him like a father figure. She described feeling that although she thought she could trust the accused and felt loved by him, she felt like she was in a very grey area, adding that it was hard not to feel loved by him but also thinking "why is this happening to me?"
5. RN said that she reported the matter to the police after she had spoken to a counsellor at Headspace and that, through counselling, she felt comfortable to report the matter. She said that she was in her counsellor's room at Headspace, she believed OO was also there at the time, when she made an online report to the police over a computer.
6. She said that she decided to tell her mother after the police rang her following the online report because they told her that they would pursue her complaint. She said that she previously did not know how to tell her mother because she was friends with the accused's wife but that having reported it to Headspace and the police she built up the courage to be able to tell her mother.
7. In relation to the Snapchat photographs RN said those photographs were taken in late 2018 on a different camping and horse riding trip that she had gone on with the accused and Z. She said that the date shown on that photograph, 22 December 2018, and the details showing that it was taken in the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales were correct.
8. In cross examination RN said that she believed that she stopped going on horse riding trips with the accused at about the same time when OO started going with him. She said that she thought that that was after her birthday on 8 March 2019 and about the middle of the year in 2019.
9. When cross-examined about the frequency of the trips with the accused, RN clarified that in the interview the reference to every second weekend or every weekend was in the context of the earlier statement to the police that it was on weekends when there were no competitions and nothing else to do. She explained in cross examination that she would attend pony club competitions, zone competitions, Gymkhanas and school competitions and go to Pinch River with the accused and Z on weekends when there were no competitions. RN was then shown a folder of photographs showing her, often in the company of the accused and one or other of (redacted), at various competitions and Gymkhanas during 2019 and various other dated photographs in 2019. When it was put to RN that she attended certain competitions and Gymkhanas on certain weekends she often agreed, sometimes said she was unsure and occasionally disagreed about attendance at a particular place on a particular date. The bundle of those photographs became Exhibit 5 in the proceedings.
10. When cross-examined on the topic of the acquittal counts around the campfire, RN agreed that at about the time of the allegations relating that to those acquittal counts it was starting to get dark but was still mostly daylight. She said that the campfire was lit at the time. She agreed with the proposition that in the Kosciuszko National Park, in wintertime, the sun sets at around 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening. When RN was shown her statement dated 29 May 2024 she agreed that in that statement she described that at the time of the incident around the fire it was not dark and that the fire had only just been lit. RN stated that the fire had only just been lit and that it was lit before it started to get dark so that when it was dark the fire was warm and they could sit around it.
11. When cross-examined about the position of the swags, RN said that when she said in the interview that her swag was always in the middle that that was incorrect. She described that the position of the swags changed from visit to visit that she was not always in the middle and she was not always on the outside. She said that the accused's sleeping bag was usually in the middle. RN agreed that she understood what the word "always" meant.
12. RN gave evidence that she was unaware of the accused getting out of his swag in the middle of the night to stoke the fire. She said that as far as she was aware the fire would go out overnight and the accused would start it again in the morning. RN said that she was unaware of the accused getting up multiple times during the night.
13. RN disagreed with the suggestion in cross examination that there was no overlapping between her swag and the accused's swag and agreed that the tarpaulin underneath which their swags were set out was about 6 meters x 9 meters. She said that she had drawn the diagram, exhibit O, to show the relative positions of the swags not to show the overlapping. She described that the accused's swag was on top of hers but was just overlapping. When shown photographs and a video of the Duncans' swags RN said that she would use their swags only occasionally if she had not brought hers. She described her swag as having zippers on both the left and right sides and that it came with poles that could be used to build it up, saying that she did not use those poles.
14. RN restated that on the last occasion when the accused touched her, her swag was on the right and the accused's swag was in the middle. RN said that she had zipped up the zippers on her swag but had left the sleeping bag unzipped and was using it like a doona. When cross-examined about her statement of 29 May 2024 it was drawn to her attention that in that statement she said that the accused had unzipped her sleeping bag and that she had always zipped up the sleeping bag. RN agreed that that statement was inconsistent with her evidence about using the sleeping bag like a doona. She said both were true and explained that she had been on so many trips to the bush with the accused that she got that mixed up. When cross-examined about her understanding of the word "always" RN said that she uses that word for a lot of things and that that was just how she said things. She said that she often uses the word "always" when she means "like nine times out of 10". At that stage of the cross examination RN became upset and was visibly crying requiring the court to adjourn. RN agreed that during the JIRT interview she did not tell the police that the accused had unzipped the sleeping bag and that she did not say that during the first trial. She rejected the proposition that she did not previously say that the accused had unzipped her swag because it was untrue.
15. When cross-examined about SC (one of the witnesses later called by the Crown relevant to tendency) RN said that she knew her through other friends and their common interest in horse riding. RN said that she and SC were friends in 2019 and 2020. Initially RN gave evidence that she first became aware that SC made allegations about the accused touching her just before or around the time she went to court for the first trial. When it was put to her that she became aware of that part of SC's allegation that the accused had unzipped her swag RN responded that she had no idea of any detail of what had happened between SC and the accused. RN said that she was not even aware that SC had gone to the bush with the accused much before the first trial. When she was cross-examined about telling a counsellor at Headspace in December 2020 that she believed that the accused had assaulted SC, RN said that she did not remember saying that.
16. In relation to her complaint to KB, RN confirmed that KB was the first person that she had told. When it was pointed out to her that in the police interview she told the police that she complained to OO in 2018 RN stated that that reference to 2018 was incorrect and that she spoke to OO in 2019.
17. RN then said that it was incorrect that her complaint to KB was before the last occasion when the accused touched her during a camping trip. RN said that she believed that she spoke to KB after this incident. RN repeated that she told KB before she told OO and before she told a counsellor at Headspace.
18. In relation to her complaint to OO, RN said in cross examination that she spoke to OO about all the allegations concerning the accused including the last occasion when he touched her in her swag.
19. RN agreed that she, (redacted) and the accused attended Gymkhanas, sporting events and other riding carnivals regularly on weekends throughout the year. RN agreed that the accused was the president of one of the pony clubs near where she lived in 2019 and into 2020, that the accused's wife Angela Duncan was the treasurer and that RN's mother, PN, was the secretary of that club.
20. It was suggested to her that there were not any weekends in 2019 where there were any camping trips involving just her, the accused and Z at Pinch River. RN rejected that proposition saying "you're wrong". RN said that the trip when the accused touched her in the swag for the last time was probably at the start of 2019. She disagreed with the proposition that her evidence on that topic was untrue.
21. In re-examination RN said that she had repeated year 10 at school and then left school at the end of year 10 to become a childcare worker.
22. She said that before she gave the statement on 29 May 2024 she was not given an opportunity to refresh her memory by reading her previous statement or the previous evidence. She also said that before giving her evidence at the first trial she did not have an opportunity to read the transcript of her JIRT interview with the police or to watch the video of that interview.
23. When re-examined on the topic of when the last trip with the accused occurred in 2019 RN said that would have happened before the serious riding competitions had started, adding that the serious competitions started in about March of each year. She said that the trip when the accused touched her in the swag on the last occasion would have happened before the start of those serious competitions and at the start of 2019.

Evidence of KB

1. KB gave evidence in the first trial on 5 May 2022, at which time she had known RN for 5 years. She said that she and RN had a conversation in early March 2020 at Cobargo Park during which RN told KB that she had to tell her something. KB asked RN what was happening and RN told KB "about a camp she went on". KB said that during this conversation RN "told me that Neil had touched her under her shirt and on her lower stomach near her V line". KB said that she pushed for RN to tell someone about the incident. KB said that she and RN spoke again in early 2021 at KB's house after school where RN told KB that she had told her mother about the incident. KB told RN that that was a big step and RN told her that she had cried, but felt better after talking about it. KB later received a Snapchat from RN saying that the police were getting involved with the situation with the accused and KB responded telling RN that she was proud of her.

The JIRT interview

1. OO was interviewed by JIRT on 15 December 2020. At that time she was 15 years old.
2. During her interview OO told the police that she was there to talk to them about being sexually assaulted by the accused. She said that it happened in 2019, stating that she thought the two occasions were on 10 February 2019 and 8 June 2019. She described those as the two major interactions. She said that each of them occurred at Pinch River.
3. OO said that on 10 February 2019 there had been plans for her and all of the Duncan family to go horse riding in the Kosciuszko National Park. She said that at the last minute it changed to being just the accused, (redacted) and OO. She said that when they got to Pinch River campsite the accused set up the swags, putting her swag in the middle. OO said that when they went horse riding that day the accused put his hand on her knee while she was riding and that later that night he put his hand in her swag. OO said that the accused's hand went up her shirt, he lifted her bra, he put his hand inside her bra and touched her breasts. She said that the accused had his hand in her swag and under her shirt touching her breasts for approximately five minutes. She said that when she told him to stop his response was "Oh, I don't bite" and then put his hand under her shirt and then started moving it towards her breasts. She said that she told him again to stop, that she felt uncomfortable and then went to the bathroom. OO said that she did not have mobile telephone service, otherwise she would have probably called somebody because she felt scared.
4. OO said that on 8 June 2019 the same thing happened. She said that initially the whole of the Duncan family was supposed to go to Pinch River and it ended up just being her, the accused and (redacted). She said that the trip on 8 June 2019 was for two nights away. She said that on the first night the accused did the same thing with the swags and that he had alcohol. OO told the police that she refused alcohol, explaining she was 13 years old at the time. OO said that when she refused the accused said "oh, you know, it's just a bit of fun" or something like that and she again refused. She said on that first night the accused stuck his hand in her swag again and touched her breasts, making her feel uncomfortable. OO said that she then zipped up her swag and went to sleep.
5. OO said that on the next night the accused again offered her alcohol. She described that she accepted and drank alcohol that evening. OO described that on that second night when she was in her swag the accused again touched her in her swag, touching her breasts and that his hand was moving down to her pants and was "feeling around down there" causing her to feel uncomfortable. She told the police that she started crying, told him that she was not comfortable and then got into the (redacted) swag and slept the rest of the night with (redacted).
6. OO explained that she had previously met the accused through (redacted) and their common interest in horse riding. She said that she met (redacted) at the pony club in 2017 or 2018, following which they offered for her to ride on their horses. OO said that she rode on a few of their horses and the accused would always try to touch her leg and do random things that she thought were really inappropriate and really gross. She said that the accused would try to get her to go to the bush with him and that she came up with excuses because she did not feel comfortable. OO explained that the accused trained the horses and that she and (redacted) would ride them. She said that she went to the state championships on one of the accused's horses and the accused also taught her how to ride the horses.
7. OO stated the accused got her to assist in "training up" a few of his horses. She explained that she got sick of him putting her on good horses, having her train them, then give that horse to (redacted) and give OO another horse, which she described as a "crap horse" to train up.
8. OO said that she started riding horses at the accused's house at the end of 2018 and 2019. She said often that she would stay the night at the accused's house after she had been riding their horses in the afternoon and evening.
9. OO said that she was able to give the dates for trips with the accused to Pinch River because she had photographs taken at the times.
10. OO said that she also went camping with the accused and her cousin she believed in January 2019 and she thought that that camping trip was to the same campsite. She said that on that occasion the accused was touching her hand a lot which she described as like drawing circles on her hand.
11. OO said that in the car the accused said to her "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush". She said that he used to say that to her all the time, which she said she later understood was to encourage her not to tell her mother.
12. OO said that 2 months after the accused touched her breasts she told her best friend RN. She explained that she did not really tell her the extent that the accused did it but said that she told RN that the accused tried sticking his hand in her swag.
13. OO said that she had told her mother that the accused stuck his hand in her swag but had not told her all the details.
14. In relation to 8 June 2019 OO said that she remembered that they travelled to Pinch River on a Friday, stayed overnight, rode on Saturday, stayed on Saturday night, rode horses and then returned home on Sunday. OO said that on that occasion there was a friend of the accused who was also at the campsite with his own car and trailer whose name she could not remember. She said that on the first night in June the accused touched her breasts and she then told him to stop. On the second night she said that she felt intoxicated and he touched her breasts and then he tried to put his hand down her pants and was touching down there and she moved away. She described that when the accused had his hand on her breasts under her bra, he fiddled his fingers around and she said it felt gross and uncomfortable. She said that conduct again continued for about five minutes. OO told the police that on that Saturday night she felt intoxicated because the accused had given her a few Vodka Cruiser drinks and that she felt a bit wobbly and woozy. She told the police that the accused had given her the Vodka Cruiser drinks commencing at about 7 o'clock and that she probably had five or six of them before she went to bed that night. She said that that was at about 10 o'clock. She describes when the accused touched her on that second night that he touched her breasts, he then put his hands down her pants, pulling her pants down as she was pulling them back up and holding them up. She said the accused was sticking his hand under her underpants, tried to touch her "down there" and that she felt really uncomfortable and then got into L's swag and slept the rest of the night with L. When asked by the police if the accused touched her genitals she said that he did for probably about three minutes underneath her underpants.
15. OO said that on the following day, the Sunday, they rode horses and then went home. OO said that when she got home she told her mother that the accused had offered her alcohol and that he stuck his hand in her swag.
16. OO said that she then refused to go back to the bush with the accused and that after the state championships which she said were on 30 September 2019, she stopped riding with him. OO said that she rode on the accused's horse named Dynamite at the time of the state championships in September 2019.
17. OO said that she only went to the bush with the accused three times and the last time was on 8 June 2019.

Evidence of OO at the first trial

1. OO was 16 years old when she gave evidence during the first trial in May 2022.
2. She gave evidence that she had by that time known RN for possibly seven or eight years.
3. There were a few occasions when she had conversations with RN during which they shared with one another that they thought the accused was "creepy". OO said that she did not know any details as to what had happened to RN and said that she had not told RN any of the details as to what happened to her, just that the accused was "kind of creepy". OO added that she could not say with 100% certainty what words were said between her and RN. OO said that she recalled that the conversation was in the context that she had told RN that the accused had invited her to go to the bush and OO then said to RN "Don't worry, I don't want to go anyway. I get uncomfortable up the bush." OO said that RN responded "Yeah, I do too. I didn't like it." OO said that she then said to RN "Yeah, Neil's creepy" and RN replied "Yeah, he is".
4. When OO was cross-examined by the senior counsel then appearing for the accused in the first trial about the incident on 10 February 2019 OO said that she was scared and uncomfortable and told the accused to stop. She said that if there had been mobile phone coverage she believes she would have telephoned her mother. When asked why she did not then tell her mother when she got home OO became emotional and said that she was scared and embarrassed and felt like she had allowed the conduct to happen. OO rejected the assertion that the accused never put his hand in her swag.
5. She stated that she continued to visit the accused's house to ride horses after the February trip because she felt comfortable at their house because there were other people around. She said that following the February 2019 trip she stayed over at the accused's family house in one of the spare bedrooms on some occasions after she had been riding horses at the property.
6. When it was put her that she continued riding the accused's horses at his house and that she went camping again with the accused in June 2019 OO became emotional. She said that after the June 2019 trip she thinks that she stayed overnight on occasions at the Duncan house, but that she did it much less often than previously.
7. OO said that the swag that she slept in during the camping trips with the accused had been supplied by him. She said she was unsure if there was a zipper down one side or both but said that she did recall that the swag had a zipper. She said she also had a blanket, sleeping bag and a pillow. She was unable say that the sleeping bag had a zipper only on the right-hand side when lying face up in it.
8. OO said she was unsure as to whether her swag was zipped up before the accused touched her on the second trip, but said that she would assume that it was. She said that after the accused touched her on that second trip she zipped it up again and described that as "taking myself further away".
9. When it was put to her that if the swag had been zipped up the accused would have had to unzip it before he could put his hands into it, OO said that the headpiece at the top of the swag was unzipped and that his hand went in through the top of the swag. She added that she did not remember entirely what the swags looked like and that she could not recall whether the swag was zipped or unzipped. Senior counsel for the accused put to OO that the accused would have to reach out of his own swag, into the top of her swag and then down far enough inside her swag in order to touch her breasts. In response OO said "is that so hard to believe? That he stuck his hand in the top of my swag? I don't really get what you're saying." She then added that her breasts were near the top of her swag so all the accused had to do was reach through the top and go under her shirt in order to touch her breasts. She repeated that her swag and the accused's were right next to each other.
10. OO said that on the second trip the accused was able to reach as far down into her swag to enable him to touch her underpants and genital area. OO said that she could not recall if L was awake when OO joined her in her swag or whether she tapped her awake before climbing into her swag. OO added that she definitely would have made L aware that she was coming into her swag before she did so. She said that L did not ask her what she was doing at the time. OO rejected the proposition that she never got into L's swag, explaining that was tight and a bit squishy for both of them to fit in there but that she slept there the rest of that evening to get as far away from the accused as she could.
11. When cross-examined on the issue of the accused supplying alcohol she rejected the proposition that she helped herself to the Vodka Cruisers having seen them in an esky, stating that L was given Coca-Cola by the accused and that the accused offered her, OO, Vodka Cruisers. She restated that the accused offered her five or six Vodka Cruisers, which she drank, on the second night of the June 2019 trip.
12. OO rejected the proposition that the accused never held her hand or drew circles on her hand and she rejected the proposition that he never put his hand on her thigh or her knee when they were riding. She said that the accused touched her in that way both in public and in private saying that it happened everywhere. When giving that evidence she became visibly upset.
13. OO agreed that she started riding the accused's horse named Dynamite several times a week and said it was possible that she commenced riding that horse in around June 2019. OO also agreed that when the Duncans were away Dynamite stayed at her family's property and that they took him for her to ride at a Gymkhana. She said that although she was unsure of the dates that it could have been around July 2019. Senior counsel for the accused then put to OO that she liked Dynamite and wanted to buy him. OO admitted that she loved that horse and if her family had had the money she would have liked to have bought him. She rejected the proposition that she asked the accused if she could buy Dynamite saying that she did not remember ever asking to buy him and did not believe that that conversation had happened. When was it put to her that she said to the accused words to the effect of "If I send you to jail you won't need him and I can buy him cheap" OO became visibly upset and was crying and responded "What?" in an incredulous tone. She added that she would never have said that and that she would never have chosen to confront the accused like that. She added that she did not believe that the conversations put to her had ever happened. OO agreed that she stopped riding the Duncan's horses because she was getting annoyed because she loved Dynamite so much and had been chucked off him and put on one of the younger horses. She said however that she accepted that because it was their horse it was their decision.
14. In relation to the mutual complaint between her and RN, when senior counsel for the accused put to OO that she had decided to make up stories about the accused touching her OO became visibly upset and said in an incredulous tone "Why would that ever be something that I would make up?" When senior counsel for the accused suggested the motive was that she was sick of him giving her crap horses to ride OO said "This thing has put me through hell" and that it made no sense and that the proposition was absolutely ridiculous. OO rejected the proposition that in 2020 she thought that she could get what she wanted by complaining to people saying that what was being suggested was not correct and that she found it "quite insulting". During this stage a cross examination OO was visibly upset.
15. OO agreed that that she did not tell her mother how many times the accused put his hand in her swag, that he touched her breasts or that he touched her genital area. OO explained that she did not want to tell her because she felt embarrassed and did not know how she would react. She said she was not ready to speak about the details at the time. OO said she still had not told her mother exactly what had happened to her because it was not something she felt comfortable talking to her about.
16. When asked if she told those details to her friend RN, OO said not that she could recall.
17. OO said that she was aware that RN had been riding horses at the Duncan's house before she had started and said that she believed that there was a little bit of overlap with her also riding at the Duncans' house. OO confirmed that the contents of the statement to the police where she said that she thought RN and her both knew that something had happened to them but that they did not want to discuss it with each other and never did, was the truth. She rejected the proposition that RN told her everything that she said the accused had done to her. OO said she did not remember having a conversation with RN where she said those details.
18. OO denied that she contacted RN to try to get her to make a statement. She said that she believed she told RN that she, OO, had made a statement about the accused and that if anything had happened to RN she would not be alone if she also made a statement. OO said it's possible that they had a conversation to the extent that RN may have asked her if he touched her and put his hand in her swag but said that it was not something that she could recall or give evidence about with any certainty. When it was put to OO that she was lying in a police statement that she never discussed the detail with RN she again became visibly upset and answered, with an incredulous tone in her voice "I wasn't lying. That was the truth as far as I knew as far as I remembered." OO added that she was not going to make up a conversation that happened between her and RN and said that she would not lie about her and RN talking to one another about the accused. She responded to the proposition that she and RN had got their heads together and decided to make up stories about the accused with the following answer "What benefits me by doing that?".

Evidence of TO

1. OO's mother TO gave evidence at the first trial. TO stated that OO became a member of a pony club at the beginning of 2015. TO said that she knew the accused and his wife through the pony club, having seen them at events from around 2017 or 2018.
2. TO gave evidence that OO began riding the accused's horses in 2019. TO remembered OO going away with the accused's family in January 2019 to ride horses in the Snowy Mountains, but said that OO brought her own horse with her on that occasion. After that trip, OO started riding at the accused's house, which TO would arrange with Angela Duncan. The Duncans would pick OO up from school in Bega to take her to the Duncans' house to ride horses and TO would pick OO up from the Duncans' house afterwards.
3. TO said that the second camping trip OO went on was in February 2019 with OO's cousin, the accused, and (redacted) L. OO then went on a camping trip in June 2019 with the accused and (redacted) L.
4. TO gave evidence that she picked up OO after the camping trip in June 2019. At some time after that trip, OO and TO had a conversation at the bus stop where OO got the bus to go to school. TO said that OO "had always said that Neil was a bit handsy but she always felt like she could deal with it, and then she sort of said that he's offered her alcohol. And I said "what do you mean?" and she said "Well, he brought Cruisers and he offered me a Cruiser."". TO asked OO if she drank the Cruiser, and OO told her that she did not. OO then told TO "he tried to touch me but I moved into L's swag". TO asked OO if she wanted to make a report, to which OO responded "No, I'm not going through that". TO said that she then told OO that she should remember what she had told her and record the information in case it came up again later. TO's evidence was that she did not ask her further about what happened specifically as she "didn't know how to unpack that" and she "didn't know how to deal with it". She said that OO was about to get on the bus to school at that stage and TO did not "want her breaking down".
5. TO said that after OO told her about the incident with the accused, OO only went away with the accused when Angela Duncan was also present.
6. In cross examination, TO said that after the February 2019 trip OO told her that the accused was "creepy" and "handsy" but that "she felt she could deal with it". She said that OO did not make a complaint to her about anything specific that happened during the February 2019 camp. She also said in cross examination that OO made multiple excuses to not go away with the Duncans when invited between the February and June 2019 trips. TO agreed that in her statement to police she said that OO went camping in February 2019 and that she had no conversations with OO about what occurred on the February 2019 trip.
7. In cross-examination TO agreed that OO rode at the Duncans' house after the June 2019 trip. She said that OO rode until the State Championships which took place from 30 September to 1 October 2019.
8. TO said that OO "possibly" rode one of the Duncans' horses on 27 October 2019. She was asked whether OO rode one of the Duncans' horses again on 3 November 2019. TO said that she did not know of those dates, but that she possibly would have continued riding with the Duncans when Angela Duncan was present.
9. TO said that she did not know whether OO stayed at the Duncans' house after June 2019, and that she may have done so on occasion. She said that when OO stayed overnight at the Duncans' house she would share a bedroom with L.
10. TO said that in 2019 she did not allow her daughter to have an alcoholic drink while at home and had no recollection of allowing OO to drink alcohol in 2019. She said that OO never asked her whether she could drink alcohol.
11. TO was asked whether OO told her after the June 2019 trip that the accused had put his hand in her swag, to which she responded that OO had "alluded to it", then saying that "she did say his hand in her swag". TO agreed that OO had told her that she moved into L's swag to get away from the accused and that she had been offered alcohol.
12. TO agreed that there were several occasions when OO competed on one of the Duncans' horses named Dynamite between June and October 2019.
13. TO agreed that OO camped with the Duncans on occasions in October and November 2019 when away for competitions, adding that Angela Duncan was also present on those occasions.
14. It was put to TO in cross-examination that she would not have let OO have anything to do with the accused if she thought that OO was in any kind of danger. TO said "I thought she was safe when Angie was there" and "she's old enough to make the decision to go to the gymkhanas". She further responded that "if [OO] thought she was in danger and told me she was in danger when Ange was there, then she would not have been going". She said that she would not let OO be in a position where she believed she was unsafe.
15. TO agreed that she had texted Angela Duncan throughout 2019 through Facebook messenger. She agreed that they texted each other hundreds of times between 10 June 2019 and 24 October 2020.

The JIRT interview

1. HU was 10 years old, and almost 11, when she was interviewed by JIRT on 23 March 2019.
2. HU told the police that she was there to tell them about what the accused had done to her.
3. She said that she knew the accused because (redacted) was one of her best friends at school and that the accused's wife had offered to do pony club with them. She said that pony club was something that she had always wanted to do. HU said that her mother would take her to the accused's house to go horse riding. She explained that she had only just learnt how to trot.
4. HU described an incident which she said occurred two days before the interview with the police, on Thursday, 21 March 2019. HU had slept at the accused's family house on the Wednesday night prior. She said that she was at the accused's house for horse riding lessons and was near the shed feeding the horses before she and L had to leave for school. HU said that at the time she and L were feeding the horses she saw that the accused was working on the horse float nearby. She said that he was 25 to 50 meters away. HU described (redacted) picked her and L up in her car to drive them to school and that she was sitting in the car.
5. HU said that the accused first asked L for a hug and then told HU to give him a hug as L was running off towards the car. HU said that she was pretty sure that the accused swiped across her breasts with his right arm and right hand, that his arm made circles and then he dragged his arm down and then touched her right breast. She said that his hand moved around in circles like he was trying to feel her breast and then went down and squeezed it. She said that that conduct occurred for only two seconds. HU described that at the time she felt "very uncomfortable" and then after the hug the accused told her to have a good day. At the time, HU was wearing a school uniform with a crop top underneath and the touching was on the outside of her clothing.
6. HU then marked on a diagram where she said the accused touched her that morning placing a circle on the right breast area, on her waist area and around her stomach area. HU described that that touching all occurred on the outside of her school uniform.
7. HU said that she told two of her schoolfriends, MM and ES. She said that she believed that she told them during recess that same day and that after she told her friends she reported to a teacher. HU told the police during the interview that she told her friends that the accused "started getting touchy on me" and that they told her that she needed to report that to a teacher or her parents. She said that they went and told a teacher Mr Shannon at recess on that same day. HU recalled that she told Mr Shannon that the accused "started getting touchy on me" and that Mr Shannon told her to stay away from the accused and to tell her parents.
8. When HU was then questioned by the police about the next incident and the timing of her complaints, she then said that her complaint to her friends and the teacher was on the Friday, the day after the incident.
9. HU said that after school on the Thursday she and L went back to the accused's family house and got on a quad bike to get horses from the paddock. She said that at that time she had changed out of her school uniform and was wearing jodhpurs and a T-shirt. HU said that L was driving the quad bike, she was sitting behind L and the accused was sitting next to her on her left hand side. HU said that on the way back from the paddock the accused put his arm around her and put his hand up her shirt. At that part of the interview HU pointed to her lower rib area. HU said that the accused's hand went inside her shirt and touched her on the skin near her waist. She marked on a diagram which became part of exhibit E where she said the accused touched her on that occasion. HU said that when he did that with his hand under her shirt, she told him to stop and he responded "It will be alright (H), it's fine." HU said that she continued to tell him to stop but he did not until they both got off the quad bike. HU said that she wanted the accused to stop touching her because she did not feel comfortable.
10. HU also told the police that she had been invited by the accused's wife to go camping and horse riding with the accused in the bush that weekend. HU said that the invitation was made before the accused started touching her and that after the accused touched her she told her mother that she did not want to go to the bush anymore. She said that she understood that the people that were to go on that trip that weekend were the accused, L, her and a guy whose name she could not remember. HU said that when L asked her why she was not going anymore HU told the police that she said that her mum had to talk to (redacted) about why she was not going.

HU's evidence at the first trial

1. At the time she gave evidence in the first trial, HU was 14 years of age. In her evidence HU said that she had no doubt that the accused had hugged her and touched her in the way she described. She denied the proposition that the accused's hands were greasy because he had been working on the horse float at the time. She said after she had been hugged and touched by the accused there was no dirt or grease on her uniform.
2. HU denied propositions put to her that the accused did not hug her or L.
3. HU said that she complained first to schoolfriends MM and ES and they reported it to a teacher Mr Shannon the following day Friday, 22 March 2019. She said that she had initially got her days mixed up when she told the police that it had been reported to the friends and the teacher on the Thursday. HU said that when she spoke to Mr Shannon she had a good memory of the hug and that she told Mr Shannon that the accused had hugged her from behind and rubbed one of her breasts. HU said she did not think that Mr Shannon was writing down what she told him at the time. She said that she told Mr Shannon everything. She also said that she told ES and MM what the accused had done and that she told them both at the same time. HU rejected the suggestion that she did not tell MM and ES about the hug. She disagreed with the suggestion that she only told MM that the accused had tried to touch her breast.
4. When cross examined about the incident on the quad bike, HU rejected the proposition that the accused was sitting behind her. She said that she was sitting behind L with both her legs on the right side of the bike and the accused was on her left hand side with his legs on the left side. HU rejected the suggestion that the accused reached around her in order to hang on as they were going over a bump, stating instead that the accused put his hand up her shirt. HU then added that she tried to pry his hand away but he would not move it. She agreed that that was the first time she told anyone that she had tried to pry his hand away. HU agreed that in May 2019 she telephoned (redacted) and asked if she could speak to the accused. She said that she then spoke to the accused. She rejected the suggestion that during that conversation she said to the accused that she wanted to apologise for what she had said and asked if she could come back. HU said that she telephoned and asked to speak to the accused to apologise because of an incident that occurred one day when they were riding and a horse ran off, saying that she felt responsible because she did not try to stop it.
5. HU agreed that in April 2020 she texted (redacted) asking if she could go over to the Duncan family house and that that visit did not occur because it was during the COVID lockdowns. HU agreed that she contacted (redacted) again in September 2020 asking if she could come over and ride (redacted) because the lockdowns had ended.
6. Photographs of the quad bike were tendered by the accused and became exhibit 4. Those photographs show large foot wells on each side and wheel arches over each of the rear tyres and a seat and metal rack at the back of the bike. One of the photographs shows Z and L sitting side-by-side towards the back of the quad bike, one with both of her legs over the left wheel arch into the left foot well and the other with both of her legs over the right wheel arch and into the right foot well.

MM's JIRT Interview

1. MM participated in a JIRT interview on 17 April 2019. In that interview, MM told police that she was in the same class in school as HU and that they were friends. MM said that she had a conversation with HU about HU going to the accused's house for riding lessons, in which HU told her that the accused had tried to touch her breast and that later that day when they were on the quad bike the accused put his hand up her shirt and started to touch her. MM said that HU told her that she asked the accused to stop but he did not and that he told her that it was okay. MM said that HU then started to cry. MM said that she and ES told HU that it was not acceptable and they then told a teacher Mr Shannon about the incident.

Evidence of MM at the first trial

1. In cross examination MM did not agree with the suggestion that during the conversation in which HU told her and ES about the incident with the accused, she only told them about the incident on the quad bike and that she did not tell them about the accused "touching her boob".

JIRT interview of ES

1. ES participated in a JIRT interview on 17 April 2019. In that interview ES told police that she attended the same school as HU and that they were in the same class in year 6 at the time. ES said that on a Thursday during recess HU told her that when she and the accused were on the quad bike he put his hand up her shirt, she told him to stop and then the accused said, "It's okay". ES said that HU had told her that this had occurred when she stayed at the Duncans' house the day before, on the Wednesday night. She said that this conversation took place in March 2019, around two or three weeks before the end of the school term.
2. ES said that HU had told her earlier in the school term that she was going to the Duncans' house three times a week to learn to ride horses, and that she was at their house to ride horses when the incident occurred.
3. ES said that HU was crying during the conversation about the incident. ES said that she and MM said to HU that she had to go with them to tell the teacher. ES said that HU told them that she did not want to tell anybody, but ES and MM then took her to the vice principal's office, where Mr Shannon spoke to HU. ES said that while HU was speaking with Mr Shannon, she and MM also told their classroom teacher what HU had told them.
4. ES told police that HU did not tell her that anything else happened with the accused other than the incident on the quad bike.

John Shannon's evidence at the first trial

1. John Shannon gave evidence on 9 May 2022. In his evidence, he stated that on 22 March 2019 he was approached by HU in the company of MM and ES after lunchtime. He said that he was in his office when HU, MM and ES asked to see the school principal, who was not on the premises, so they saw Mr Shannon.
2. Mr Shannon asked MM and ES to leave and spoke to HU alone in the principal's office. HU told him that the accused was her horse-riding teacher and that he had done something inappropriate. Mr Shannon told HU that he would need to report this. Mr Shannon said that HU then told him that the day before she had been at the Duncans' property on a quad bike. She said that she was at the front and the accused had put his hands inside her shirt and that he later asked for a cuddle and made HU feel uncomfortable.
3. Mr Shannon gave evidence that HU also told him that she was going to be invited to the Duncans' house for a sleepover or a party and she did not know what to do about it.
4. In relation to the quad bike incident, Mr Shannon further described that HU told him the accused put his hands on her sides. She did not give any further details about either incident.
5. Mr Shannon then told HU that he would need to tell her mother about this and he would need to make a report. Mr Shannon and HU met with HU's mother to tell her that HU had made a disclosure to him which he would need to report, and that she should speak to HU to decide what to do about the upcoming party she had been invited to by the Duncans. Mr Shannon then informed the school principal that he would need to make a mandatory report, and called the Child Protection Hotline. He was contacted a few days later by a detective, and some time later he made a statement.
6. In relation to HU's demeanour when making the complaint, Mr Shannon said that she was "pretty agitated".
7. In cross examination Mr Shannon agreed that he was aware of his mandatory obligations to report any allegations of child mistreatment. He agreed that he made notes in a notebook straight after the event which reflected what HU told him. The notes also reflected that HU told him she was invited for a camp-out sleepover.

SU's evidence at the first trial

1. SU gave evidence on 5 May 2022. SU said that she is HU's mother and that in 2019 HU was school friends with (redacted). She said that HU went to (redacted) house in early March 2019 for horse riding lessons. SU picked HU up from these lessons at the Duncans' house on occasion, which was when she first met the accused and his wife. SU exchanged text messages with Angela Duncan relating to HU learning how to ride horses and going to pony club.
2. SU gave evidence that she arranged for HU to sleep over at the Duncans' house on Wednesday 20 March 2019. At that time, she also exchanged messages with Angela Duncan about HU going on an overnight trail ride and camping in the Snowy Mountains with the Duncans. SU said that she believed the sleepover on 20 March 2019 was HU's first overnight stay at the Duncans' house. HU brought a bag with her to school for the sleepover on Wednesday morning and was picked up after school on Wednesday by Mrs Duncan. HU stayed at the Duncans' house on Wednesday night, and was to go horse riding before school. HU was to then go back to the Duncans' on Thursday afternoon to do more horse riding. SU picked up HU from the Duncans' house on Thursday afternoon. SU gave evidence that when she picked up HU from the Duncans' house on Thursday, HU said to her that she did not want to go on the upcoming trail ride with the Duncans as she had a scare with a horse.
3. SU gave evidence that she picked HU up from school on Friday 22 March 2019. SU said that on this occasion, HU got into the car and told her "Mum, I have to tell you something. You know how I went to (redacted) house on Wednesday? Well, (the accused) did something to me on the Thursday". SU stated that HU proceeded to tell her that in the morning, the accused requested a hug from her and his arm brushed against her breast during the hug and that during the afternoon when they were on a quad bike the accused put his arm around HU and put his hand under her shirt. SU said that her daughter told the accused to stop but he did not. SU and HU then spoke to Mr Shannon.

SC's evidence at the first trial

1. SC was 15 years old when giving evidence at the first trial.
2. SC gave evidence that she recalled going camping with the accused and (redacted) L between 7 and 10 November 2019. SC said that they went camping to Pinch River. SC said that they left for Pinch River on Friday 7 November and that they travelled in the accused's car with his horse float and horses.
3. SC said that when they arrived they unloaded the horses and put their swags out underneath a tarpaulin. She said at first her swag was set up on the outside but that the accused told her and L to move the swags so that SC's swag was in the middle.
4. SC said that after they had set up camp it started to rain so they went for a drive in the accused's car. SC said that they drove on a rough road to a cabin and that L had to get out of the car to open a gate to get to the cabin and that when she was out of the car the accused reached behind the driver's seat and touched and rubbed SC's leg. She said that he touched her leg with his hand in a rocking motion between her ankle and her knee and that that conduct lasted for about a minute and that when L got back into the car the accused stopped touching her leg.
5. SC gave evidence that later that day after they had dinner around the campfire she and L went to bed into their swags. She described the swag she was using as one that had been supplied by the accused. She said that she understood that the one she slept in was the one that belonged to the accused's wife. She said that it had a zip on the left-hand side. SC described her swag as in the middle of the three with L's swag on her right and the accused's swag on her left.
6. She said that at about 8 o'clock that evening the accused got into his swag. She said that at the time it was dark. She said that after he had got into his swag he then unzipped hers. She described that he unzipped it halfway down and then put his hand inside her swag and underneath her shirt. She said that the accused's hand initially went onto her stomach, then his hand moved up, his fingers went underneath her bra and touched her breasts. SC said that after about 20 seconds she rolled over onto her right hand side to stop the accused touching her. She said that after she had rolled over the accused zipped her swag back up and that she did not get any sleep that night.
7. The following day SC said that the accused apologised and said "I hope you are mature enough to keep this between you and I". She said that she nodded her head in response. After that conversation SC said that she, the accused and L had breakfast, saddled horses and then went for a ride through the bush. She said that ride took the whole day and that when they returned to the campgrounds some friends of the Duncans were also at that same campground. She described the friends as being a boy named Toby and his father. SC said that that evening the accused told her that he had wanted to give her a pink drink but said that he could not give it to her then because there were other people around. She said that she did not understand at the time what he was talking about.
8. SC said that after dinner at the camp fire they sat around the fire for a bit on their phones. She said that they had eaten dinner at about 6 o'clock because it was starting to get dark and that after dinner she rugged the horses and she and L went to bed at about 8 o'clock. She said that the friend of the Duncans had their own camp site and a horse crate which was about 20 meters away.
9. SC said that the accused and his friend stayed up a bit longer drinking around the campfire. She said that the accused went to bed at about 9:30 pm and that she was awake at the time because she and L had been playing on their phones. She described that they were playing games but that she did not have any telephone service.
10. SC gave evidence that when the accused went to bed he got into his swag, which was on her left hand side, then unzipped her swag from the top to about halfway down, he then placed his hands inside her swag and she gave evidence that he then rubbed her "private area" through her jeans. When asked if she could say what the private area was she said "I'd rather not" but then described it was at the front of her body, on the bottom half of her body and that he was rubbing the outside of her jeans. She said that that continued for about 10 minutes and that the accused was using up-and-down and circular rubbing motions. SC said the while that was occurring L was in her swag on SC's left hand side and that as far as SC could tell L could not see what was going on.
11. SC said the next day she, the accused, L and the friends all had breakfast together then all went for a ride which lasted the whole day. After they returned from that ride she said that the accused drove her and L back towards Jindabyne. She said that was at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. SC said that when she got to Jindabyne she texted her mother to arrange to be picked up.
12. SC said that the accused touched her in the same place, which she described as her "private parts", on both nights of that camp. SC marked a circle on a diagram to indicate where on her body the accused had touched her. That diagram, which became exhibit L, was marked by SC with a red circle around the genital area.
13. During cross-examination SC said that she was sure that the accused rubbed her leg in his car before the first time he stuck his hand into her swag. SC's attention was then drawn to some notes which she had made before she first spoke to the police in which she said that the accused put his hand into the swag under her shirt and rubbed her private area and that he apologised the next day and that it was after that they went for a drive in the rain and the accused rubbed her leg.
14. SC denied the suggestion that there was no rubbing of her leg in the car.
15. It was suggested to her in cross examination that the pink drink that was referred to was a raspberry flavoured drink. She said that she did not drink raspberry flavoured soft drink. She agreed that she told the accused that she was not allowed to drink Coca-Cola. When she was asked if she was allowed to drink alcohol she responded "I was 12, so, no." SC rejected the suggestion that the accused had referred to bringing raspberry soft drink for her and L, stating instead that he referred to "pink drinks". She said the accused did not offer her any raspberry flavoured soft drink on the camp. She said that she did not recall later telling her mother that the accused told her that he had brought raspberry for the girls to drink. She also said that she did not remember saying to her mother that she drank raspberry soft drink all the time. She said she did not remember her mother saying to her that the raspberry drink might have had alcohol in it. SC said she had told her mother about the accused offering her a pink drink and then mentioning that he could not give it to her because other people were around.
16. SC said in cross examination that on the morning after the accused put his hand in her swag on the first night she got out of her swag in the morning, went to the toilet and that when she came back she was crying. She said that when she came back crying L did not say to her what's wrong with you or why have you been crying and L did not ask her if she was okay.
17. SC agreed that she told her mother that she was terrified after the accused touched her and when asked if she remained terrified for the rest of that weekend she answered "for the rest of my life". SC said that she had never told L what the accused had done to her.
18. SC agreed that in the swag that she had borrowed the zipper was on the left. She agreed that inside her swag was a blanket and also a sleeping bag and that she was inside the sleeping bag, which was inside the swag, on both of the nights of the camp. When shown photographs and a video of swags owned by the Duncans, SC said that she did not remember if the swags shown in those items were the swag that she slept in.
19. SC said that the sleeping bag which was contained inside her swag was not zipped up because she did not like being in confined spaces. SC also said in cross examination that the accused set his own swag up at the start of the camp and told her to put hers in the middle. SC disagreed that L was lying on the swag next to the accused on both nights, stating instead that the accused was on one side of her and L was on the other side.
20. On the second night of the camp SC said that the accused unzipped her swag, put his hand inside her swag, and touched her for about 10 minutes. She said that she tried turning to get away from him but that he kept touching her. She said as far as she was aware L was not awake at the time. When it was put to her that she had told the police that L was on her phone the whole time playing games, SC said that she could not remember. She admitted that when the accused was touching her she did not try to get L's attention.
21. SC rejected the proposition that the accused never put his hand in her swag and that he never touched her.
22. In relation to the drive to the cabins, SC agreed that the dirt track that the car was driving on was rough and that the engine kept stalling. She described that she was sitting in the rear of the car directly behind the accused who was driving. She said that she and L were bouncing around in the back because of the rough road and she agreed that there were food bags on the back seat of the car. She said she could not remember if any of those bags fell off the seat during that trip. She rejected the suggestion that the accused was reaching behind the seat to grab the food bags and put them back on the seat and stated that the accused did not move any bags.
23. It was put to her that she and L were mucking around in their swags when the accused told them to settle down and be quiet, to which she said she did not remember. It was also suggested to her that the accused then poked her in the ribs and accidentally touched one of her breasts. In response to that SC said that she did not remember. SC rejected the proposition that the accused apologised to her the next morning for accidentally touching her breast when he was trying to poke her in the ribs and she rejected the proposition that the accused said that it was not intentional.

Evidence of JC at the first trial

1. In her evidence at the first trial JC stated that she is the mother of SC, that her husband is PC, that she has known the accused for around 30 years, and has known the accused's wife and children for around 3 years. JC said that in 2019 SC was invited to go camping with the Duncans. This was the first time that SC had been camping with the Duncans, and the trip was arranged through SC and the (redacted) and partially between JC and Mrs Duncan.
2. JC said that on Friday 7 November 2019 she and SC met the accused and (redacted) at a turn-off for SC to go on the camping trip, and that on Sunday 10 November 2019 she picked up SC from the same place. JC said that SC had no phone service on the camping trip. When JC picked up SC on her return the accused, L and SC were already at the turn-off waiting for her. JC got out of the car to speak to them. JC said that she asked SC if she had a good time to which SC said "Mm".
3. On the night that SC returned from the trip, JC said at dinner SC "didn't really eat anything and said she felt sick and then went to bed". After dinner JC went to check on SC in her room. JC asked SC if she was okay and SC turned her back to JC. JC said that she asked SC again if she was okay, after which SC started sobbing and turned around and told her that the accused had touched her. When asked for details SC said that the accused had put his hand under her shirt and touched her breast. JC said that when she asked her daughter if the accused had touched her anywhere else SC said "Yes, he did, between my legs" and described that the accused had rubbed her stomach and then rubbed between her legs. JC said that at this point SC was hysterical. JC told SC that she would need to tell SC's father. SC asked her mother to tell her father and said that she did not want to tell him herself. The family then decided to report the matter to the police.
4. JC gave evidence that SC told her that SC had initially set up the swags so L's swag was in the middle and that the accused then told them to swap the swags so that SC's swag was in the middle. JC said that SC told her that when she was in her swag it was zipped up and that the accused undid the swag, put his hands in her swag, under her shirt, on her stomach and "down to her private areas". SC told JC that this occurred on both nights of the camping trip when it was dark.
5. SC told JC that during the camping trip SC was sitting with the accused at the fire while L was away doing something with the horses. The accused said to SC "come and sit down here with me", put his arm through SC's arm and put his hand on her leg. She said that SC told her the accused had told her that "While they were in the bush she could do what she liked. She could drink alcohol, she could smoke, she could swear, she could do whatever as long as she didn't tell her parents because he'd get in trouble". JC also said that SC told her that while on the camping trip the accused had asked her whether she was menstruating.
6. JC described that when the police came to speak with her SC was too distraught to talk to them.
7. A few days later, SC told JC that the accused had said to her "he apologised for what he's done but hoped that she was mature enough to accept that and to be mature enough to keep it between him and her and not tell her parents".
8. In cross-examination JC agreed that she told police that SC told her that the accused brought raspberry drink on the camping trip. She agreed that SC told her that she did not have any of the raspberry drink and that SC told her that the accused had not offered it to her. JC agreed that she did not include the accused asking her daughter about whether she was menstruating in her statement.
9. JC participated in a pretext telephone call with the accused which was recorded by the police on 6 November 2020. During that call JC confronted the accused, telling him that her daughter had told her about the trip to Pinch River. The accused said that something did happen during that trip but described it as an incident where SC and L were mucking around in bed and he said that he went to dig her in the side and that as he did that she twisted and he accidentally touched her breast. The accused described that SC was half sitting up in bed and that she and L were messing around. He said he did not recall exactly what they were doing at the time. When JC asked why he dug SC in the ribs rather than (redacted) the accused said that she was right there. The accused also said that he did not put his hands inside her swag and that she was half sitting out of a swag at the time. He said that he did not undo the zip of the swag. He told JC that he apologised because he was concerned that he touched her on the breast and that she had thanked him for apologising. He told JC a number of times that it was not intentional. During the call the accused also denied that he had touched or rubbed SC's crotch area and denied touching her leg in the car. The accused said that he had instead pushed her leg out of the way in the car. JC also confronted the accused during the call about him providing alcohol during the camping trips and telling SC not to tell her mum. The accused responded that he did not offer her alcohol and said that he instead told her that there was lemonade and raspberry in the esky for her to drink. When confronted about moving the swags the accused said that he had to change them over so that he was on the outside when asked why he did not put (redacted) L in the middle the accused said "I don't know. They, they, they put the swags out". When asked why he did not arrange it so that his swag was next to (redacted) the accused said that he left it up to the girls to organise the swags and that he had put his on the outside. The accused also apologised for accidentally breaching the trust that SC's parents had placed in him. When JC told him that her daughter had said he had touched her on both nights, the accused said that that was definitely not correct and that it only happened on the second night. The accused told JC that he had grabbed her daughter on the leg when she was sitting on a chair and squeezed her leg which he described as "just general messing around" and said there was nothing sexual about it. The accused also denied that SC pulled away from him because he was touching her breasts and her genitals. He then said "She, well we were just messing around. And she twisted or turned or did something". Later during the call in relation to touching SC's leg in the car the accused then said "No, I pushed her out of the way, to move some gear". He admitted that he touched her leg when the car was stationary and not moving. He then said that he had tapped SC a couple of times to push her out of the way. The accused then said that he only had himself to blame, he would like to turn back the clock and then stated "we've probably all, all done some silly things in our lives".
10. When JC told the accused that her daughter was terrified over the course of that weekend and that she felt completely isolated with no phone service, the accused said that she did not appear to him to be terrified or distressed and said that she was happy, laughing, messing around and appeared to be having a great time.
11. Towards the end of the call the accused said that he hoped the situation did not "explode". He said that if JC was to report this "all hell would break loose" and then added "the kids (will) be dragged through the court, I'd be dragged through the court", that he would not wish that on anybody especially himself and said that he did not need it at that stage of his life.
12. The accused said that he had always been a good caring person and that he was from the old school where you give your child a cuddle if they were distressed or smack on the arse if they were naughty. The accused then said that he could have touched SC on the thigh but said that he could not recall. At the end of the call the accused said a number of times that he was regretful that he had broken JC's trust and said that that was something that he could never get back.
13. Later on the same day, 6 November 2020, SC's father, PC, also made a pretext telephone call to the accused which was recorded by the police. When the accused came on the phone he said to SC's father that he knew what the phone call was about. When asked what his story was the accused said that he accidentally touched PC's daughter on the right breast when he tried to dig her in the side and she twisted or turned at the time. The accused said that was not intentional, they were just messing around and it was a bit of fun, there was no intention involved and nothing more to it than an accidental touch of the breast. The accused repeated that he had the impression that SC was fine and that he had moved his own swag to the outside and left it up to the girls to work out which of them slept in the middle and which of them slept on the opposite side. The accused told PC that he had apologised to his daughter and he said that he did not know what else he could do. The accused again referred to the "old days" where you could give the kid a cuddle or smack them on the arse. He said that he tended to forget that you cannot do that nowadays. The accused also said that if he was "that way inclined" he would not be admitting to doing anything.

Evidence of Detective Senior Constable Nathan Marks

1. Detective Senior Constable Nathan Marks gave evidence on 9 May 2022 that he had recently become the second officer in charge in this matter. He was aware that there were lawfully recorded telephone calls between JC and the accused, as well as between PC and the accused, which took place on 6 November 2020. He gave evidence that there was also a search warrant at the accused's house on 6 November 2020, as a result of which nothing of interest was found. DSC Marks confirmed that on 6 December 2021 police requested statements to be taken from the accused's wife, and (redacted), and that they each declined.
2. In relation to HU and SC, police took clothing for DNA sampling. DSC Marks confirmed that there were no results.
3. In cross examination DSC Marks confirmed that the outcome of the DNA sampling was that the DNA examined did not match any DNA profile of the accused. He said that the testing was unsuccessful.
4. DSC Marks said that he did not have the opportunity to review the entirety of the brief in this matter.

Evidence of the accused

1. The accused gave evidence on 10 May 2022 during the first trial. That evidence was to the following general effect: 1. he denied ever putting his hand inside RN's swag on a camping trip to Pinch River, or at any other time; 2. he denied touching RN's breast(s) on a camping trip to Pinch River, or at any other time; 3. he denied touching RN's genital area through her clothing on a camping trip to Pinch River, or at any other time; 4. he denied touching RN's bottom through her clothing on a camping trip to Pinch River, or at any other time; 5. he does not recall saying to RN "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush"; 6. he denied sexually touching RN; and 7. he denied having a sexual interest in young females, including RN.
2. When examined by his own senior counsel the accused said that he first met RN in 2016 and that he had gone on camping trips to Pinch River with her and (redacted) three times between 2016 and 2020. He said that he remembered going camping to Pinch River with RN and Z in 2019. The accused said that his wife had organised the camping trip in 2019 with RN's mother, PN. He said he did not know when in 2019 he went camping with her.
3. The accused's senior counsel asked the accused a number of questions in chief about the camping trip with RN in 2019.
4. The accused said that when he went camping with RN in 2019 he took three horses because the horse trailer that he had at the time could not fit any more than three. He also said that he remembered that he took three blue swags with him on the camping trip with RN and Z in 2019. The accused described that each of those swags had a zip on the right-hand side as you lie in them. He described that his swag would always be on the outside when they were set up at Pinch River, adding that he did not want to have to climb over children when he got up in the night to go to the toilet.
5. The accused was then asked a number of questions by his senior counsel about the 2019 Pinch River camp with RN. He agreed that there was a campfire and that the chairs had to be moved around the campfire to avoid the smoke. He denied moving RN's chair and he denied massaging RN around the campfire with (redacted) Z present. He denied touching RN next to the campfire or anywhere else on that camp in 2019 and he denied ever holding her hand. The accused denied ever sticking his hand inside RN's swag on the camping trip to Pinch River in 2019 or at any other time.
6. When cross-examined in relation to RN the accused re-confirmed that he went camping with her at sometime in 2019 but said again that he could not be sure of the specific day of that trip. He recalled that he, (redacted) Z and RN attended that camping trip. When cross-examined about the acquittal counts he said that he recalled that RN may have gone to get a drink but denied that he then pulled her chair closer to him. He denied that his swag was in the middle and he denied that RN brought her own swag, adding that he did not think that she even owned a swag. The accused denied that RN's sleeping bag was not done up and she was using it like a doona, but he agreed that he could not see RN's sleeping bag when she was inside her swag. The accused also accepted that he could not recall whether RN's swag had been unzipped or zipped.
7. The accused denied that he held RN's hand during the 2019 camping trip or at all. He denied that he put his hand inside her shirt and under her bra and he denied that he massaged her breasts. The accused also denied that he then moved his hand down towards her genital area and touched her genitals on the outside of her clothing.
8. When cross-examined about touching RN's bottom in her swag the accused said that it was impossible because if he had been touching her genital area she must have been lying on her back and it would not have been possible from that position for him also to touch her bottom.
9. The accused denied ever saying to RN "What happens in the bush stays in the bush", saying that (redacted) used to say that all the time. Although he accepted that he himself had said those words thousands of times, he said that he did not recall ever saying them to RN.
10. When it was put to the accused that he had a sexual interest in RN in 2019 he laughed and said "No" and when it was put to him that he touched RN for his own sexual gratification he said that that was incorrect.
11. The accused also gave evidence in chief in relation to each of the complaint and tendency witnesses. The accused said that he took OO off Dynamite in order for (redacted) Z to ride him because Dynamite was her horse and because the horse that she had been on previously was too big and she was struggling to handle it. The accused agreed that he went camping in the bush with OO and (redacted) during 2019 and agreed that those camping trips happened in February 2019 and June 2019. In relation to the setup of the swags when camping with OO, the accused said that his was always on the outside and accepted that hers was in the middle. The accused denied that he had arranged OO's swag to be in the middle. He denied offering or providing OO with any alcohol during either of the 2019 camping trips but said that he was aware that she had drunk alcohol on those trips because he saw her get a Vodka Cruiser out of the esky and she asked him whether or not she could have it. The accused said that he told OO that she could. The accused gave evidence that OO told him that OO had previously said to him in front of her own mother that she was a beer drinker and the accused said that OO's mother did not blink an eyelid. The accused said that to his knowledge OO had one alcoholic drink. He denied ever holding OO's hand during the camping trip, putting his hand inside her swag, touching her breasts or touching the top of her genital area. In relation to touching her genitals the accused said in evidence in chief that was impossible for him to put his hand down the top of her swag, under her shirt and then towards her pubic area because as he put it "I haven't got a 2 meter long arm".
12. The accused said that he had never seen OO get into (redacted) L's swag during the camping trip in June 2019, he denied ever seeing OO crying or appearing to be upset at any of the camps. The accused also said that he had no memory of ever placing his hand on OO's knee or thigh while she was riding a horse but that it was possible he may have tapped her knee or thigh when she was riding in order to tell her that she was doing a good job or to get her attention.
13. The accused said he had a conversation with OO in 2019, after OO had been told that the horse Dynamite was now going to be ridden by Z, in which he said OO said to him "I want to buy Dino", he responded "He's not for sale nor will he be" and then she said "Well, if I put you in jail, you won't need a horse and I can buy it cheap", in response to which the accused gave evidence that he said "That's not happening" and walked away. The accused said he told his wife and the president of the pony club about that conversation.
14. When the accused was cross-examined in relation to OO he denied that he put his hand in her swag or up her shirt, he denied that he lifted her bra and touched her breasts. He said that OO never said words to him to the effect of "Stop" and he denied that he ever responded that he did not bite.
15. When cross-examined on the issue of supplying OO with alcohol the accused said that she consumed one Vodka Cruiser on the first night and that he accepted that he allowed her to have it. He said that she did not have any alcohol on the second night during June. The accused denied that OO had six or seven Vodka Cruisers saying that he did not have that many in the esky.
16. When cross-examined about putting his hand into her swag and touching her breasts the accused said that it was impossible to do that and denied that he had unzipped her swag. The accused added that there was also a sleeping bag so that would have been two lots of zips which he would have needed to have undone. He said that the zip on the sleeping bag was on the opposite side to the zip on the swag and that he could not just put his hand in there because she was in a sleeping bag. He conceded that because it was dark and because he could not see inside the swag that he would not have known whether the sleeping bag was zipped or unzipped.
17. The accused said that on the second night of the June 2019 trip that he had stayed up drinking with a friend, Gary Caldwell, after the girls had gone to bed. The accused agreed in cross examination that that friend was not sleeping in close proximity to him, (redacted) or OO. The accused disagreed that on that second night he put his hand into OO's swag or touched her breast. He also disagreed that on that second night he moved his hand down and touched her genitals inside her underpants. He disagreed that he tried to pull her pants down, that OO asked him to stop, that she said she did not like it or that he said words to the effect of "I don't bite". He denied that OO got out of her swag and got into (redacted) L's swag to sleep the rest of the night with her. The accused rejected the proposition that the conversation he said that he had with OO about him going to jail did not happen.
18. He denied that he had a sexual interest in OO and he denied that he touched her in the manner alleged for his own sexual gratification.
19. In his evidence in chief in relation to HU the accused said that (redacted) was friends with her and had invited her to stay overnight at his house. He recalled her being over for a school night and that he was aware that the next morning that his mother-in-law Jan Treadwell picked up HU and L to take them to school. He said that at the time he was in the shed working on the bearings of a horse float and that his mother-in-law pulled her car up in front of the shed. He said at the time that he would have been covered in grease because he was doing the bearings by hand. The accused denied hugging anyone including (redacted) or HU at the time. In addition the accused said that he never hugged (redacted), adding that he was just not that type of person. In relation to the incident on the quad bike the accused said that he recalled being on the quad bike and said that (redacted) L was driving, HU was sitting behind her and he was sitting behind HU. When asked if he was sitting beside anyone he said he was not and added that a person could not sit next to anyone on the bike; he said that a small person could but it was fairly dangerous. The accused admitted that he touched HU on the hip or the waist that afternoon on the quad bike. He said that he touched her on the waist with his right hand through her clothes. When asked why he did that he said that he was hanging on and added "It gives me quick access to the steering, accelerator, break". The accused denied that HU complained about the touching, he denied that he ever touched her underneath her clothing and he denied ever asking or suggesting to HU that she might go camping and horse riding in the bush with him.
20. When cross-examined about HU the accused said that she attended his family house for a sleepover on 20 March 2019 and that she came back to that house again after school on 21 March 2019. He denied that he gave HU or (redacted) L a hug. He denied standing behind HU, putting his right arm over her shoulder and touching her breast. He denied touching HU on the quad bike underneath her shirt and he denied that she told him to stop. He also denied having a sexual interest in HU and that he touched her as alleged for his own sexual gratification.
21. The accused agreed that there was an incident where a horse had run away and HU had not tried to stop it but said that that was not the incident that related to the apology when HU rang him up on the telephone.
22. In his evidence in chief concerning SC the accused agreed that she went camping with him and L on 8 and 9 November 2019 to Pinch River. He said that the same swags which he and his family owned were taken on that occasion. The accused denied that SC slept in his wife's swag, adding that his wife's swag was brown in colour and was not there that weekend. The accused denied ever touching SC in her swag or ever seeing her crying or upset. In relation to the incident in the car the accused said that because it was raining he decided to take the girls for a drive to see some huts which he said was about a 2 hour and 20 minute trip. He described the first hour or so of that journey as being on a fairly good road but that the second hour was on a very rough fire trail. He said that (redacted) was in the rear passenger side seat and SC was sitting in the middle of the rear seat beside (redacted). The accused said that there was a bag with some food on the back seat and he reached behind his seat, pushing SC's leg out of the way in the process, to collect food which had fallen on the floor, to put it back in the bag and put the bag back on the seat. When asked if he rubbed SC's leg between the ankle and the thigh his answer was "Not unless the action of reaching around the back of the seat, getting stuff, (is) determined a rub. I wouldn't call it that so."
23. The accused denied ever offering SC a pink drink and he denied telling her that he could not give her a drink or a particular kind of drink when there were other people around. The accused said that instead he told SC that there was lemonade and raspberry soft drink in the esky and that the raspberry was L's special drink. The accused agreed that in the pretext call with SC's mother he accepted that he accidentally touched SC's right breast. He described that he had been sitting with a friend and the friend's son around the campfire after the two girls had gone to bed. He said that when he went to get into his swag, L and SC were playing and giggling on their phones. He said that he told them to put their phones down and go to sleep and reached over and poked SC in the side. He described that as he did that she turned and his hand made accidental contact with her breast. He said he apologised to her the next morning and told her that it was an accident and unintentional. The accused agreed that he told SC's mother that he had broken her trust and explained that what he meant by that was that he had accidentally touched her daughter on the breast and that he considered, by accidentally doing that, he had breached her trust.
24. When cross-examined in relation to SC the accused agreed that in the camping trip in November 2019 SC's swag was in the middle of the three swags and that his was on SC's left. He denied that he unzipped SC's swag or that he put his hand inside the swag and under her shirt. He denied that he was able to see whether not her sleeping bag was zipped up because he had unzipped her swag. He denied putting his hands underneath her bra or touching her breast. He also denied that the following morning he told SC that he hoped she was mature enough to keep it between themselves. The accused also denied that on the Saturday night he unzipped SC's swag, put his hand halfway down her swag and rubbed her genital area on the outside of her jeans. The accused denied that he told SC's mother and father that he breached their trust because he had intentionally sexually touched their daughter.
25. The accused denied that he had a sexual interest in SC and that he engaged in the conduct alleged for his own sexual gratification.

Evidence of Angela Duncan

1. Angela Duncan, the accused's wife gave evidence in the first trial and gave further evidence during the present trial. In Mrs Duncan's evidence in chief in the first trial she said that she knew that RN went camping with her husband and (redacted). When asked if she was able to say when or where she said that she would not be able to say with particularity when they went camping. She said that she was aware that her husband took RN and (redacted) camping between 2017, 2018 and 2019. Mrs Duncan also said that she was aware that her husband took RN, and (redacted), camping to Pinch River. She said she was aware that he took RN to Pinch River during that same period between 2017 and 2019. She said that as far as she was aware her husband and RN went camping to Pinch River only one or two times between 2016 and 2020.
2. In relation to OO Ms Duncan said that she had a conversation with her husband during which he complained that OO had said to him that she would have him sent to jail and she would then be able to buy Dynamite cheaply. In relation to HU, Ms Duncan said that she was aware that HU's mother enquired about going horse riding in the bush with L in about March 2019. She gave evidence that despite the enquiry HU never went a camping or horse riding on a weekend with her husband. Mrs Duncan gave evidence that her husband told her about a telephone conversation he had with HU in which she apologised for something she had said.
3. During cross examination in the first trial Ms Duncan agreed that she had spoken to her husband about the matter during which she had asked him questions and he had given her some answers. When cross-examined about the number of occasions the accused went camping and horse riding with OO and it was suggested to her that that occurred more than three times, Mrs Duncan said that as far as she was aware there were only three occasions. She accepted that there may have been camping trips that she could not now recall but said she did not think so.
4. Mrs Duncan gave evidence that she had reviewed event programs, photographs, calendars and phone records to attempt to work out the accused's, and her family's movements during 2019. She gave evidence that she obtained phone and data records from Telstra. From those various sources Mrs Duncan prepared a colour-coded calendar for 2019 which became exhibit W. In compiling that calendar Mrs Duncan said that she relied on the following sources : 1. telephone and data records for the mobile telephones of the accused, Z and herself (exhibit 6); 2. the dates of horse riding events she had obtained from a pony club calendar of events for 2019 (exhibit 7), screenshots from social media posts relating to the dates of those events (exhibit 11) and a schedule of points scored at those events (exhibit 10); 3. photographs which she had taken of the accused or (redacted) when camping, at horse riding events, on holidays or at home (exhibit 8); and 4. screenshots of postings by RN's mother on social networks (exhibit 9).
5. In relation to the last source of information Mrs Duncan gave evidence that she had assumed that the dates shown on social networks for the date on postings was accurate and that the same date that the photographs were posted were the dates they were actually taken.
6. Angela Duncan gave evidence that the accused attended every horse riding events at which (redacted) Z competed during 2019.
7. The majority of the photographs contained within exhibit 8 contained date, time and location details as recorded by Mrs Duncan's mobile telephone at the times she took the photographs. However, a number of the photographs did not have any recorded details of the location. Mrs Duncan gave evidence that she was unable to explain why that was so. Mrs Duncan was also unable to explain why some of the photographs show that her mobile telephone was in "SOS" or "Flight Mode" at the time she took the relevant photograph or screen shot.
8. In relation to the calendar of horse riding events for 2019 Mrs Duncan said that it was sent out by the pony club in May 2019 to correct an error in an earlier version, and she said it recorded the dates of events which had already occurred prior to May 2019 and the advertised or expected dates for future events in that year. She also gave evidence that the advertised dates for events change from time to time during the year because of weather, ground availability and other variables. She said however that when that happened there would be notification of changes by email or social network postings or calendars would be updated and re-sent.
9. At numerous references in that calendar there are references to data records or phone records with reference to locations which Mrs Duncan said she had obtained from the Telstra records for what she understood were cell tower locations for the use of mobile phones. She gave evidence that she assumed the Telstra records were correct when preparing the document. Mrs Duncan had no expertise in relation to the meaning of the data she obtained from Telstra, and in particular no expertise in relation to mobile telephone cell towers or mobile telephone networks. She was, for obvious reasons, unable to give admissible evidence to explain the meaning of those records. No evidence was adduced to explain the Telstra records or the cell tower or network coverage at Pinch River or its surrounds.
10. In summary the effect of Mrs Duncan's evidence and the calendar she prepared was to establish that the accused was elsewhere, other than Pinch River, on numerous weekends in 2019.
11. During cross-examination Mrs Duncan said that an EPIRB device, like an emergency beacon, had been purchased by her and that it can send out an emergency signal but cannot be used to connect of mobile phone to reception. She said that her family also purchased a satellite phone and her understanding of the satellite telephone was that it could make and receive telephone calls and send and receive SMS messages that it could not get Internet access. Although she said that she believed those items had been purchased in Christmas 2019 she said it was possible that they had been purchased a year earlier in Christmas 2018.
12. Mrs Duncan conceded during cross-examination that exhibit W, the colour-coded calendar she prepared contained a number of errors by reference to dates and times. She also conceded that wherever her calendar refers to telephone records or data records that, because she has no expertise in those areas, she could not explain them. She conceded that for a number of the blue shaded entries in her colour-coded calendar she was entirely reliant on the Telstra phone records and in particular the Telstra records in relation to apparent location of mobile phones, to enable her to make entries in the calendar with reference to apparent locations.
13. Mrs Duncan conceded that it was possible that camping trips involving her husband and others took place at Pinch River during summer months. She conceded that she had seen and discussed her husband's evidence given at the first trial.
14. Mrs Duncan accepted that there were times in 2019 when her husband could have been camping with (redacted) and one of (redacted) school friends. She accepted that she could not say, one way or another, whether the accused went camping at Pinch River with RN and Z in 2019 and she conceded it was possible that they did. She also accepted that it was possible there were occasions in 2017, 2018 and 2019 when the accused, RN and (redacted) would go camping together to Pinch River. Although Mrs Duncan said that she could not specifically recall such a trip, she accepted that there could have been such trips including in 2019.
15. Mrs Duncan stated in cross-examination that when she went on family camping and horse riding trips that she was the least capable rider and that she did not ever go on full-day horse rides
16. Mrs Duncan was then cross-examined about a call charge summary schedule prepared by the prosecution which became exhibit V. Mrs Duncan's attention was directed to 3 specific weekends in 2019 in relation to which the Crown suggested that the phone records establish that for a significant part of the weekends in 2019 either her husband's or Z's mobile phone did not make or receive any telephone calls or SMS messages. During that cross-examination Mrs Duncan agreed that the phone records established that over the weekend 1 February 2019 to 3 February 2019 neither her husband nor (redacted) made or received any phone calls or SMS messages from 5:47 pm on Friday, 1 February 2019 until 7:35 am on Sunday 3 February 2019. She agreed those records showed that neither her husband nor (redacted) phone made or received any telephone calls at all times during Saturday 2 February 2019. Mrs Duncan conceded that it was possible that that was because their phones were out of range because they were both in the Pinch River area for part of that weekend.
17. Mrs Duncan was then cross-examined about the weekend between 14 and 16 June 2019 and was put to her that the phone records establish that neither her husband nor (redacted) mobile phones made or received any telephone calls or any text messages between 6:50 pm on Friday, 14 June 2019 until 12:12 pm on Sunday, 16 June 2019. Mrs Duncan conceded that those records were consistent with the mobile telephones for her husband and Z (redacted) being out of range entirely for the whole of Saturday, 15 June 2019 and the morning of Sunday, 16 June 2019.
18. In relation to the weekend of 9 August 2019 to 11 August 2019 Mrs Duncan conceded that the phone records establish that there was no phone call or SMS made or received by her husband on Friday, 9 August 2019 or Saturday, 10 August 2019 and that there were no telephone calls or SMS messages made or received by (redacted) after 12:22 pm on Saturday, 10 August 2019 until 10:21 am on Sunday, 11 August 2019. Mrs Duncan conceded from those records that it was possible that her husband and (redacted) were out of telephone range at Pinch River on Saturday 10 August and Sunday 11 August 2019, stating "They certainly could have. Yes."
19. Mrs Duncan said that when she attended camps that she would sometimes drink Vodka Cruisers which she described as being raspberry and pineapple, coming in a four pack of small glass bottles and tasting similar to raspberry flavoured soft drink but describing them as tasting a little more tart.
20. On the topic of her husband's physical affection towards (redacted) Mrs Duncan agreed that at times her husband would hug (redacted).
21. She accepted that she had heard her husband use the phrase "what happens in the bush, stays in the bush". She said that she had heard him say that when talking to his mates but was unable to explain what the thing was that had to stay in the bush, stating instead that she thought it was just a reference to having fun. She accepted that the phrase could be understood to be a reference to something wrong or mischievous being kept quiet and said that she had never understood the expression that way.
22. In relation to her evidence that the accused had told her that he had accidentally touched SC on the breast when he went to jab her in the ribs, Mrs Duncan said that she did not report that to SC's parents because she did not feel that she needed to.
23. On the topic of her evidence of the accused reporting to her that OO had made a threat she said in cross-examination that she did not report that to OO's mother because she thought that if she was to take the complaint further she would do so off her own bat and that OO's mother might not know about it. She said that she told people at the pony club about the threat in case OO complained to them. Mrs Duncan said she discussed with her husband what he might have understood was behind the threat and he told her that that was all that OO had said and that there was not any more information. In relation to other evidence given by Mrs Duncan about apparent complaints or threats made by OO in relation to other people, not the accused, Mrs Duncan said that she did not raise any of those other matters with OO's mother, her school, her teachers or the authorities because she did not really think it had anything to do with her; she said instead that once she had heard that OO had made threats against her husband that they decided to distance themselves from OO by preventing her from continuing to ride their horses.
24. On the topic of the order in which the swags were set out, Mrs Duncan said that whenever she attended camping and horse riding trips she had always seen her husband on the outside and that (redacted) always slept on the opposite other side. She and (redacted) would sleep in the middle. She understood that the reason husband always slept on the outside was so that he could attend to the horses if something had happened to them during the night.
25. Dealing with her evidence in chief that the swags never overlapped, she said there is usually enough space between the swags to be able to walk between them in order to go to bed. She accepted though that it was possible for corners of swags or parts of the swags to be touching one another from time to time without the people sleeping in them noticing. Mrs Duncan conceded that she would not have always been able to observe whether a people attending their house in order to go camping brought their own swags.
26. Mrs Duncan rejected the proposition put to her that she had tailored her evidence to fit in with the evidence given in the first trial by her husband. She also rejected the proposition that she had tailored her evidence to fit in with what he had said in the pretext calls to JC and PC.
27. Mrs Duncan said that on any occasion that she camped at Pinch River during summer months that they would not light a campfire because it was too hot. She said there were occasions when her husband went camping with others and she did not attend and that she did not necessarily know the specific campsite they went to but she said that she always knew the general area.
28. Mrs Duncan gave evidence that her husband was approximately 180 centimetres, or 6 foot, tall. She conceded that she did not know anything about the closest mobile telephone cell tower to Pinch River, she conceded that if someone was to ride for half a day in any direction of the compass away from Pinch River she would be unable to say in which direction they would have to ride to get towards the closest mobile telephone tower. She accepted that she had no knowledge and no expertise as to how mobile telephone networks worked or in relation to mobile telephone cell towers. Mrs Duncan also accepted that all references to locations for phone records and data records that she had included in exhibit W were based on her assumption that the phone was somewhere generally in that vicinity, her assumption that the mobile telephone records supplied by Telstra were accurate and she accepted the possibility that those assumptions may not be correct and that the phone may be somewhere else entirely.

Evidence of Z at the first trial

1. Z gave evidence on 11 May 2022. Z gave evidence that in 2019 and 2020 she lived in Bega with (redacted). At this time she knew RN from pony club and RN's mother coming to their house. Z said that she went camping at Pinch River with RN but she could not remember a trip where it was only her, RN, and the accused, and said that usually one of the accused's friends would go on the camping trips.
2. In her evidence, Z said that she did not see the accused touch RN while on a camping trip. She said that she did not see the accused putting his hand down the front of RN's shirt, massaging either of RN's breasts, holding RN's hand, or touching RN's chest area around a campfire.
3. Z said that during the camps that she went on with RN, they slept in swags. She said that the swags were blue canvas swags with a blanket and sleeping bag inside.
4. When Z was told that RN said the accused massaged her left breast around the campfire where they were sitting, Z responded in the negative when asked if anything like that happened.
5. Z said that the accused does not hug her or (redacted).
6. In cross-examination, Z said that the accused hugs her on occasions when he goes away.
7. Z said that she sometimes takes friends on camping trips with the accused, but not often.
8. Z said that she had not spoken about the facts to do with this trial with anyone in her family, including her grandmother.
9. Z said that she remembered going camping with the accused and RN. When it was suggested to her those the camping trip occurred in 2019, Z said "Maybe".
10. When cross-examined about sleeping in swags, Z agreed that they took swags to sleep in on the camping trip with RN, but disagreed that the accused's swag was in the middle when they were sleeping. Z said that the accused's swag was on the outside, but she was not sure which side it was on.
11. She said in cross-examination that she was watching the accused for the whole camping trip. She conceded that she would take her eyes off the accused while they were sleeping. She agreed that she would not be watching the accused when she went to the toilet, but said that RN would have come to the toilet with her.
12. Z said that she remembered sitting down at the camp fire. She did not remember what she ate for dinner or what time they had dinner. She said that when they were sitting, she sat next to the accused and RN was sitting on the swags. Z said that RN "probably" sat at the camp site when she was eating dinner. Z agreed that she would have seen the accused put his hand down RN's shirt if that had happened.
13. Z agreed that while camping with RN and the accused, they slept in swags when it was dark at night. She said that RN would sometimes bring her own swag when they went camping. She did not remember whether RN had brought her own swag on that occasion, but said that she remembered RN's swag as being zipped up and having poles in it. She disagreed that RN's swag had two zips, and said that it had one zip going down one side.

Evidence of L at the first trial

1. L gave evidence on 11 May 2022. In 2019 she lived in Bega (redacted).
2. In her evidence L said that she knew OO through Cobargo Pony Club and she thought that OO rode one of the accused's horses named Dynamite.
3. L said that she did not remember going on a camping trip with OO and the accused in 2019 or at any other time. She said that she could not remember the names of anyone else who she and the accused might have gone camping with. She said that she may have gone camping with the accused and a friend in 2019, but that she did not have a clear memory of that time. L said that she probably went camping with the accused.
4. L said that when they went camping she slept in a swag which she thought was blue. She described that the swag had a sleeping bag inside it, some blankets, and canvas on top. L said that she had her own swag. She said that her swag was the length of "a tall person" and that it was wide enough to fit at least one person inside. L said that she did not remember anybody else ever sleeping in her swag with her while on a camping trip with the accused. She said that no one had ever slept in her swag with her, and that it could only fit one person.
5. L said that she knew HU as they attended the same school, and that HU was in the year above her. She said that HU went over to L's place once or twice, and slept over once or twice.
6. L said that when she lived at Bega (redacted) would drive her to school. She said that (redacted) would usually pick her up from the house, but sometimes picked her up from the stables if they were feeding the horses that morning. L said that she remembered (redacted) taking her and HU to school at the same time once. She remembered that on that occasion they went to the stables, fed the horses, got into the car and left. She said that she did not see the accused hug HU and said that the accused was "not a hugging person". She said she never saw the accused hug HU. She said on that occasion the accused did hug her.
7. L said she "kind of" remembered going camping with SC at Pinch River. On that camping trip was L, SC, the accused, and two of the accused's friends, Mick and Toby, who are father and son.
8. L said that she did not see SC crying on the camping trip, and that SC appeared to be happy the whole time. She did not observe that SC looked like she had been crying, including having a runny nose or red eyes.
9. L did not remember going for a drive anywhere during that camping trip. She was asked whether she saw SC eating anything, to which she responded that SC probably did, because she would have had to have eaten.
10. In cross examination L was asked whether on the trip with SC and the accused, SC may have been crying and she did not see it. L said that she was with SC most of the time, and that when she was with SC she did not notice her crying. L agreed that SC would have gone to the toilet by herself and that she would not have seen if SC was crying in the toilet. L said that she did not see SC with red eyes.
11. L agreed that the swags she slept in while camping were adult-sized swags, and that in 2019 she was 9 or 10 years old. She said that it was "maybe" possible that another child could fit in the adult-sized swag with her, but that she would have noticed if someone else got in her swag with her. L said that she would have noticed if someone got in her swag with her even while she was sleeping, as she is a light sleeper. L said that she did not remember SC getting into her swag during the second night of the camping trip.
12. L was cross-examined about HU coming over to the house. L said that she remembered riding the quad bike with HU but could not recall whether or not the accused was also on the quad bike.
13. When it was put to L that the accused did ask L for a hug when they were being picked up by (redacted) L said that it was "very unlikely" as the accused "never really asked for hugs". It was then suggested that after L hugged the accused she ran to the car. L disagreed with this, saying that (redacted) she goes with them to show them where they should sit in the car. When it was suggested that L did not go to the car with HU on this occasion, she said that she did not know.
14. L said that in the lead up to giving her evidence she did not discuss the facts of the accused's case (redacted). She said she had not had a conversation with anybody about it.

Evidence of Janet Treadwell

1. Janet Treadwell is the accused's mother-in-law and (redacted). She said that in 2019 she lived near Bega, around one kilometre away from where Angela Duncan and the accused lived.
2. Mrs Treadwell said that in 2019 she drove (redacted) to school every day, and that if there was somebody else that needed a lift, she would take others as well. She remembered taking a girl named OO regularly, as well as other friends of (redacted). She also remembered taking HU, a friend of L's, to school from the Duncans' home.
3. Mrs Treadwell remembered taking HU to school on a particular day. She said that she had to pick up HU and L from the stables. To do so, she said she pulled up at the main entrance of the stables at the paddock.
4. Mrs Treadwell said that when she picked up HU and L from the main entrance to the stables she did not see anything unusual. She said that she did not see the accused hug L, and that he was not near HU and L. She said that she saw HU and L come out of the stable door to her car, and that the accused was with Mrs Treadwell's husband doing work on a trailer, which was something they did often.
5. Mrs Treadwell said that she did not see the accused hug anybody that morning. She said that if she had seen the accused hug someone she would have noticed and it would have stood out in her memory as she said the accused did not hug (redacted) when they went to school.
6. In cross examination, Mrs Treadwell said that when she pulled up in her car there were three girls there, as she said Z was also there. She said that she pulled up at the open doorway, and that her car was around 6 feet away from the door to the stables. She said that she waited in the car and beeped the horn, after which the girls came out. She said it took "maybe a minute" for the girls to walk from the horses to the car and she said that the accused was around 30 metres away from her, that she could see him from where she was for the whole time, and that he did not come up to where she was in the car.
7. Ms Treadwell said that she did not know how many times she had taken HU to school, but that she could only recall taking her or hearing her name on one occasion.
8. When asked whether she took (redacted) to school most days rather than every day, Ms Treadwell said that if they were going to school she would take them to school and agreed that she had given evidence in the trial that took place in 2022 that she took them to school most days. She said that she meant that she did not take them to school on days they were not going or when she was unwell. She agreed that she did not say those things in the 2022 trial.
9. Mrs Treadwell agreed that she said she took OO to school and that she was "a regular". She said that she knew OO's name because OO sat in the front of the car and OO was dropped to a different school than (redacted). She said that she did not take OO often, but she used the word "regular" to mean that she knew OO's name, and that she saw OO more than the other children. Ms Treadwell was reminded of the evidence she gave at the previous trial that she took OO "once or twice". She said that OO was not a regular, but that she drove her to school "on the rare occasion she was there".
10. Mrs Treadwell said in cross-examination that she had a clear memory of the day that she picked up HU in relation to where everyone was and seeing the girls running out. She did not remember if anyone said anything. She said that she has not discussed her evidence with anyone (redacted). She said that on this occasion and at the last trial she did not receive assistance about what to say.
11. She disagreed with the suggestion that she did not have a memory of that day involving HU. She agreed that in the last trial she said that she did not have a particular recollection of this day, but said that she does remember where people were on that day. Ms Treadwell agreed that at the last trial she gave evidence in cross examination that when she pulled up at the stable "if he (the accused) was there, I would have waved". She agreed that at the previous trial she said she did not recall L running towards her, and that she had given evidence that "they would have all come out probably together with and got in the car". She said that she was not speculating when giving this evidence, but that she knew that the girls came out and would have jumped in the car.
12. Mrs Treadwell said in cross examination that she knew she would have to give evidence about the fact that she picked up HU to take her to school. She agreed that she did not give that detail in her evidence at the previous trial in 2022, and only said that she knew she had to give evidence but not what it was about.
13. Mrs Treadwell agreed that in the last trial she did not mention that she had seen her husband and the accused by the trailer on that day. Mrs Treadwell disagreed with the suggestion that she made up this recollection.
14. Mrs Treadwell agreed that in the last trial, when she was asked whether she had taken HU to school she responded "apparently I did". She said that she had been told by legal representatives that she would need to give evidence about what had happened on that day.
15. Mrs Treadwell was reminded of her evidence in the previous trial that she had some recollection of picking up HU and taking her to school, and that she would have "possibly" picked up HU from the stables. In cross examination about this evidence she said that "sometimes I picked them up from the house, sometimes I picked them up from the stables" and that in this case she drove to the stables and took HU to school. She agreed that she only had a recollection of taking HU to school on one occasion. She agreed that at the last trial she did not give evidence about honking the horn, and said that was something that she would have done.
16. It was suggested to Mrs Treadwell in cross examination that she did not have a specific memory of the incident, to which she said "I believe I do". She disagreed with the suggestion that on that particular day the accused hugged L and HU. She said that she knew that it had not happened as when she was sitting in her car the accused was not near L and HU. She said that at the time that she was in the car, the accused was on her right near the other gate to the stables, and that HU and L came toward her from the main gate of the stables. She said that she was closer to the stables than 10 or 12 metres at the time, as she pulled up at the doorway of the stables.
17. Mrs Treadwell was reminded in cross-examination of her evidence in the last trial that she would have remembered seeing the accused hugging HU as it was not characteristic of the accused to hug. She said that by this she meant that the accused does not hug anybody, that he would hug the children if they were hurt, but does not hug them when they go to school. She said that she has seen the accused hug his children at home. She then said that the accused would hug his children if they had done something well. She said it was uncharacteristic of the accused to hug a stranger. She said that she was not told by anybody to say that the accused is not a hugger.
18. In re-examination Mrs Treadwell was reminded of her answer that she "apparently" took HU to school on one occasion with L, and she said that she meant that she did not know who it was that she was taking to school until the girls got into the car. She said she had a recollection of taking HU to school.
19. In re-examination Mrs Treadwell said that when parked at the stables her car's bonnet was facing the road, and the passenger doors faced the stables. She said that if one was standing outside of the car with their back to the passenger door and facing the stable, one would see the paddock on the left side, and on the right was the stables where the accused was standing at the trailer. She said that when she pulled up and honked her horn she stayed in the driver's seat. From where she was sitting the paddock was to the left and behind her, and to the side was the stable door, which she was watching to see the girls come out of and come to the car. In order to watch the stable door, she looked to her left. She said that the accused and her husband were straight ahead of her.

The Crown case

1. The Crown case is that the evidence outlined above establishes beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the counts.
2. The Crown submitted that the court would be satisfied that the evidence established that the accused went camping with RN and Z in 2019. The primary submission was that the court would be satisfied because the accused himself conceded in his evidence during the first trial that he went camping with RN and Z in 2019, although he was unable to say precisely when in that year. The Crown also relied on the evidence of Angela Duncan who conceded that it was possible that they went camping in 2019, although she thought it was unlikely given her understanding of the phone and data records. The Crown relied on exhibit V to establish that notwithstanding Mrs Duncan's extensive work in reviewing calendars, photographs, social media and phone records for the entire year of 2019 there were three weekends upon which the offender RN and Z could have been camping in the Pinch River area because for significant parts of each of those weekends the accused's phone and (redacted) phone did not make or receive any telephone calls or messages. The Crown submitted that that evidence was consistent with each of their phones being out of range at the time and consistent with them being in the Pinch River area. The Crown submitted that the data records which Mrs Duncan said that she got from Telstra were meaningless because no expert evidence had been called to explain what they mean or how it could be that the mobile telephones may have been updating with data when they were unable to make or receive telephone calls or SMS messages. It was submitted by the Crown that in the absence of expert evidence to explain that material that the data records from Telstra were entirely meaningless. In support of that submission the Crown pointed to the accused's phone and data records for the weekend of 8 November to 10 November 2019, the weekend on which the evidence in the first trial established that the accused, SC and L were in Pinch River, that over the course of that weekend the accused's mobile telephone did not make or receive telephone calls or SMS messages between 1:06 pm on Friday, 8 November 2019 until 1:43 pm on Sunday, 10 November 2019. The Crown submitted that the evidence in the first trial establishing that the accused was in Pinch River that weekend in November 2019 with SC and L and the telephone and data records show a similar pattern for the weekends 1 February to 3 February 2019, 14 June to 16 June 2019 and 9 August to 11 August 2019. The Crown submitted that that establishes that the accused does not have an alibi for those weekends because it was consistent with him and (redacted) being out of phone range on those weekends.
3. The Crown submitted that the weekend from 1 to 3 February 2019 was consistent with evidence given by RN about the last occasion she went camping with the accused. The Crown pointed to evidence that she complained to OO about what was happening at about that time and that it was about that same time OO started riding with the accused or going on camps with him. The evidence was that she started riding with the accused in either late 2018 or early 2019 and that she had been at a camp with him on 4 January 2019. The Crown submitted that there was consistent evidence that the last camping trip that RN went on with the accused, and the occasion when he last sexually touched her was the last time she went camping and was in February 2019. The Crown submitted that other evidence in the case was consistent with RN's last camping trip to Pinch River being in 2019. The Crown pointed to the Snapchat photographs taken on 22 December 2018. RN said that those photographs were taken at a different place, not Pinch River, and her evidence was that it was a different occasion to the time when she alleges that the accused last touched her in her swag. The Crown said that in light of her evidence that it was at Pinch River and it was the last time she went camping and horse riding with the accused that that it must be that the photographs on 22 December 2018 predate the camping trip when she alleges that sexual touching occurred. It was submitted by the Crown that that evidence is consistent with the sexual touching relevant to this trial occurring in 2019. The Crown also relied on part of the evidence given by Z when she said that she believed that the trip that she went on with (redacted) and RN may have occurred in 2019.
4. The Crown submitted that the court would not accept the accused's account and put it to one side. Accepting that the court needs to give the accused the full benefit of the acquittal counts it was submitted that that meant the court would find that the jury in the first trial were unable to find beyond reasonable doubt that those counts had been proved. It was submitted that even giving the accused the full benefit of those acquittal counts in light of the fact that the accused admitted that he went on a camping trip with RN sometime in 2019 that the court would be satisfied that the trip occurred during that year. The Crown submitted that the accused's evidence would be rejected and put to one side because it was deeply unsatisfactory. The Crown submitted that his accounts were implausible, inconsistent both with his own evidence and with objective evidence and unpersuasive. In particular the Crown submitted that the accused said in his evidence that it was impossible for him to have sexually touched RN in her swag because his arm was not 2 meters long reflected poorly on his credibility and reliability. The Crown also pointed to his denial that he ever hugged children including (redacted), which the Crown submitted ought not be accepted particularly because during the pre-text call he told SC's parents that he was old-fashioned and would from time to time hug (redacted). The Crown also submitted that his evidence in relation to SC was unsatisfactory because the effect of his evidence was that he admitted touching her three, possibly four, times including touching and squeezing her on the leg. The Crown also submitted that it was implausible that the accused would choose to poke the rib cage of a young girl to whom he was not related, in preference to (redacted), in order to convince both of them to go to bed. The Crown said that there was no reason for him to touch SC and that if he genuinely was trying to get (redacted) and SC to go to bed he should have directed his attention instead to (redacted). The Crown also pointed to his evidence concerning moving her leg or touching her leg when she was sitting in the back of the car and it was submitted that he changed his evidence as he went along. It was submitted the accused initially said he pushed her leg out of the way or moved her leg out of the way to get some gear and later that he grabbed her leg in order to pick up food. It was also submitted by the Crown that the accused's evidence in relation to him saying "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush" was unsatisfactory. When that was put to him his response was that (redacted) said that all the time and that when later pressed on the topic he accepted that he himself had said those words. The fact that he said them was also supported by his wife's evidence. The Crown also pointed to the inconsistency between the accused's evidence concerning whether RN brought her own swag and RN's evidence she brought her own swag as well as (redacted) evidence that RN brought her own swag from time to time and was able to describe it in some detail.
5. On the topic of the accused's evidence concerning the alleged threat from OO the Crown described that evidence as simply fanciful. The Crown submitted that the accused's alleged words "He is not for sale nor will he be" did not have the ring of truth about them. It was further submitted that the accused and his wife's evidence about the alleged threat was extraordinary in that neither of them apparently enquired as to what was behind the threat, what it was that OO claimed might be the basis for the accused ever going to jail, never reported the matter to OO's mother despite knowing her well and never reported to the police, but instead informed people at the pony club that OO might make similar false allegations to them. The Crown also submitted the accused's evidence about OO openly professing to be a beer drinker was absurd in the context of a 13-year-old girl away on a camp with an unrelated male as the only supervising adult in authority. The Crown submitted that the accused's evidence on the topic of having alcoholic drinks available to children or acquiescing in the consumption of those drinks was unbelievable.
6. On the topic of the accused's evidence relating to the pretext phone calls concerning SC the Crown submitted the evidence of his responses to SC's parents was particularly unimpressive and contained numerous inconsistencies. The inconsistencies included the number of times that during those calls he admitted that he had touched SC and claimed to have breached their trust, which the Crown submitted was inconsistent with his assertion that his touching of SC's breast was entirely accidental. It was also submitted that the accused used the word "we" when he described in the calls "We were just fooling around and having a bit of fun" which was inconsistent with him chastising the children. The Crown submitted that his expressions of concern about police involvement and being dragged through the court during the pretext call was also inconsistent with his assertions that the touch on SC's breast was accidental.
7. In relation to the accused's evidence concerning HU the Crown submitted that the court would have difficulty in accepting his evidence that he sat behind HU, who in turn was sitting behind L so that he had quick access to the steering wheel, the accelerator and the break. It was submitted that in the position the accused said that he was sitting he would be the furthest away from those controls. The Crown submitted that the court also would not accept that he touched HU during the trip on the quad bike because he was hanging on as the bike was going over bumps because the photograph of the quad bike shows that there were numerous metal bars which he could hang onto and that he did not have to hold on to a young girl instead. It was also submitted that his explanation that two people could not sit next to one another on that quad bike was inconsistent with the footwell as shown on either side of the quad bike in the photograph.
8. The Crown submitted that wherever the evidence of the accused's mother-in-law Jan Treadwell, the accused's wife Angela Duncan, or Z and L differed from that of the complainants that the court would reject the (redacted) evidence including the evidence given by the accused. The Crown accepted that the exception to that of course is that the accused is to have the full benefit of the acquittal on the acquittal counts and that must operate in his favour.
9. The Crown then submitted that if the court rejected and put to one side the evidence of the accused then it had to consider the evidence of the complainant RN, the complaint witnesses and the tendency evidence witnesses. In relation to RN the Crown submitted that her evidence both in its content and demeanour was such that the court would be satisfied that she was an honest, accurate and reliable witness. It was submitted that her evidence established that she lacked the capacity to engineer false allegations against the accused and that her young age at the time explained some of the inconsistencies in her recollection. It was submitted that she was a polite, respectful and responsive witness.
10. On the topic of collusion the Crown submitted that the evidence does not establish collusion between RN an OO. In support of that submission the Crown said the court should take into account their demeanour and their genuine surprise that each of them gave when propositions of collusion were put to them. It was further submitted that each of them volunteered to the police when spoken to during JIRT interviews that they had spoken to one another about the matter before they went to the police. The Crown submitted that by volunteering that information each of RN and OO were being open and honest about their interactions with one another. The Crown submitted that was inconsistent with them colluding to make false allegations. In addition the Crown pointed to the evidence that established that RN first complained to KB, which it submitted was inconsistent with her colluding with OO to make up false allegations. The Crown heavily relied on the evidence which established that RN did not report the matter to the police until a time after she had spoken to a counsellor at Headspace. That submission was supported by RN's evidence and the police evidence that RN's initial report was made by computer from inside Headspace's office. It was submitted that it would be a very curious thing for a young person to hatch a plan to lie by first reporting the lie to counsellors at Headspace and then to the police. The Crown submitted that the order in which RN complained was precisely what one would expect from a genuine and young complainant who was unsure about what to do and was in need of encouragement and support.
11. In relation to the extensive cross-examination of RN at the first trial and at this trial in relation to alleged inconsistencies in her evidence the Crown submitted that those inconsistencies were on matters that were inconsequential both in relation to proof of the offences and in relation to accepting RN as a witness of truth. On the topic of the number and placement of the zips on the swag and on the sleeping bag the Crown submitted that RN's evidence, as supported by Z, that her swag was one that she brought herself and that had a zip on both the left and the right hand side and when cross examined on that topic, that cross examination went nowhere. Further, it was submitted that the issue of the placement and position of zips was unimportant in the context of an adult male, who his wife described as almost 6 foot tall, being able to reach down through the top of a swag into a sleeping bag to the chest area and the genital area of a young female. Similarly the cross-examination about RN's use of the word "always" about whether not she zipped her swag and sleeping bag, it was submitted by the Crown, led nowhere. The Crown submitted that she is a young person whose use of language should be expected to be imprecise from time to time. It was also submitted that she explained that when she used the word always she meant something less than 100% of the time. It was submitted that the alleged inconsistencies in RN's account were trivial matters that did not assist in assessing whether the Crown had proved the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt or in assessing RN as a witness of truth.
12. The Crown submitted in the context of the whole evidence presented in the Crown case that there was a significant amount of evidence that supported that RN was telling the truth and that she was a witness who was accurate, truthful and reliable. The Crown pointed to the fairness that RN displayed in her descriptions of the accused. The Crown submitted that she was prepared to say good things about the accused as well as to give evidence that he had done bad things to her. It was submitted that that evidence was instructive about how truthful RN was. That evidence included acknowledging that the accused had provided her with amazing opportunities and that she had regarded him as a friend. It was submitted that if RN was fabricating false complaints against the accused she would not be giving charitable evidence about his character or their relationship.
13. It was also submitted that that evidence was relevant to assessing her credibility as well as explaining her delay in complaining. It was submitted that because the accused was someone she cared about, respected, trusted and relied upon that that went some large way to explaining her reluctance to complain about him. It was submitted that the complaints that ultimately she made to KB and OO were prompted by them rather than initiated by RN. The Crown submitted that in those circumstances her complaints were all the more credible.
14. On the topic of the tendency evidence the Crown submitted that the evidence of OO, HU and SC was detailed, related to similar conduct by the accused creating opportunities with them, related to similar touching in similar parts of their body and was given by each of them in a fair, measured and believable way. It was submitted that each of them gave their evidence without any indication of exaggeration and that their evidence was compelling. It was submitted by the Crown that the substantial challenge to OO's evidence, in that she had a motive to lie because she wanted to buy one of the accused's horses, was not only plainly absurd but that the court should take into account OO's reaction when the proposition was put to her, describing the process of giving evidence as "Being put through hell" and that she suggested that it was ridiculous that she would do that just to buy a horse. The Crown also pointed to her evidence that her family would have never been financially able to purchase the horse in any event. Notwithstanding evidence that she loved the horse in question and was upset that she was no longer riding that horse, the Crown submitted that the court would take into account her obvious response to the proposition put to her that she had a motive to lie because she wanted to buy it. It was submitted that her response was genuine and that her response that the apparent motive was ridiculous and insulting should be accepted. The Crown also pointed to common threads in OO's evidence and SC's evidence concerning the accused either providing to or acquiescing in the consumption of alcohol by young people when he was camping with them. The Crown also relied on the absence of any reference to alcohol in RN's evidence to further support the submission that there was no collusion.
15. The Crown also pointed to OO giving evidence, consistent with RN's, that the accused told her "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush". It was submitted that OO's evidence concerning hearing that statement together with her account that she felt ashamed for in some way allowing or effectively letting the accused sexually touch her explains the acquiescence to his conduct and her delay in complaining. In relation to the tendency witness SC the Crown pointed to her evidence that the accused apologised the following morning and told her that he hoped she was mature enough to accept the apology and keep it between the two of them as having the ring of truth. The Crown submitted that appealing to a young girl's maturity in order to keep a secret should be accepted as truthful evidence particularly in the context that the night before SC said that she rolled over in her swag to prevent the accused from continuing to touch her. The Crown also pointed to JC's evidence, SC's mother, who gave evidence that SC became hysterical when she complained to her, describing what the accused did to her and said that she did not want to have to tell her father. The Crown also relied on SC's reluctance to even name the body part, rather than just a general description of the area, that she said the accused was touching, in support of her innocence, honesty and reliability.
16. In relation to the other tendency witness HU the Crown submitted that she presented as a sweet, kind and very young girl. It was submitted that her evidence was measured, was fair and had no sense of embellishment about it. It was submitted, that although there were some differences in HU's recollection of her complaint to her school friends and their recollection of the complaint that they had heard, and some difference between her account of the complaint to the schoolteacher Mr Shannon and his recollection of the complaint, HU had given consistent evidence in the JIRT interview and in the first trial about what she alleges the accused did on the two occasions when she said he touched her. Any inconsistencies in accounts about the complaints made by HU, the Crown submitted were explicable because of the embarrassment and reluctance to complain to an adult, having been encouraged to bring it to the attention of an adult by her school friends. The Crown in particular relied on the immediacy of each of HU's complaint to her friends MM and ES and once they encouraged her, the immediacy of her complaint to the teacher Mr Shannon. The Crown particularly relied on MM's recollection of the detail of the complaint reported to her by HU to support the submission that HU's complaint was detailed, consistent and immediate. It was also submitted that it was open to the court to find that HU's more complete and more graphic complaint to her school friends concerning the touching and the body parts that were touched was, in the circumstances of a young, shy and reluctant complainant, understandably more detailed than the complaint made to an adult male teacher.
17. It was submitted in relation to each of the tendency witnesses that the court would find that there was no evidence of any calculation, preplanning or rehearsing of their account. Rather, it was submitted that their evidence established the necessary common thread to establish tendency. The common thread was that all the girls enjoyed horse riding, each of them considered the accused was somebody who could help them to do that, each of them regarded the accused as somebody who could teach them, who was generous with his time and his horses and could provide them with amazing horse riding opportunities including horse riding lessons and riding in the Snowy Mountains. It was submitted that each of them gave evidence that established the accused had a sexual interest in female children and a tendency to act on that interest in a particular way namely by touching female children including RN.
18. It was submitted that the court should take into account the complaint evidence as additional evidence that RN was sexually touched in the way that she describes and as relevant to establish the truthfulness of RN's evidence in court. The Crown submitted the court would be satisfied that the Crown has established that the accused had the tendency alleged and that the evidence would assist the court in establishing that made it more likely that the accused committed the offences charged on the indictment.

The Defence case

1. Counsel for the accused submitted that the defence case had been established through cross examination of Crown witnesses and the witnesses called on behalf of the accused. It was submitted that the Crown case relied substantially on the reliability of RN, the critical prosecution witness, to prove the offences charged. The accused submitted that the evidence of RN was unreliable, such that the elements of each offence on the indictment had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it was submitted that the evidence of OO, HU and SC was so unreliable that it could not be used for tendency purposes in support of the counts on the indictment.
2. On the topic of RN's credibility and reliability Counsel for the accused submitted that her evidence contained numerous inconsistencies and that a great number of them could not be reconciled. It was submitted the court would not be satisfied that tendency had been established but that, even if tendency had been established, the tendency evidence was not enough to cure the deficiencies in the Crown case relevant to the two charges on the indictment. It was also submitted that RN's evidence was infected by collusion, or at the very least concerns about contamination, because of her discussions with other complainants from the first trial. It was accepted, in accordance with the directions that I have given myself set out in annexure A, that some level of inconsistency should be expected in cases such as this particularly given the age and immaturity of the complainant and other witnesses. It was also submitted, in accordance with the directions contained in annexure A, that inconsistent accounts can be explained, not just by truthful versions given by young witnesses, but also by untruthful accounts. It was submitted that the evidence given by RN was inconsistent in "almost every area or part of the constituent evidence" and that the court should review those inconsistencies cumulatively and that as a result the court would not be satisfied in relation to reliability or credibility of RN.
3. The defence submitted that there was consistent evidence from witnesses for the Crown and witnesses from the defence there was no mobile telephone reception in the Pinch River area. It was submitted that the evidence about lack of mobile telephone reception was supported by the evidence about the Duncan family purchasing a satellite phone and an EPIRB device to overcome that issue.
4. In relation to the telephone data records, it was submitted on behalf of the accused that the Crown's submission that those records should be put to one side in the absence of expert evidence should not be accepted. It was submitted that those records, even in the absence of expert evidence explaining them, leads to an available inference that on the weekends the Crown points to the accused having no mobile telephone coverage to make or receive phone calls or text messages, that his phone and (redacted) phone were constantly "buzzing" with data downloads and uploads. The defence submitted that the court could infer that that evidence establishes a pattern that the mobile telephones of the accused and (redacted) on the weekends in question were not out of mobile telephone range because they were uploading and downloading data, including at regular intervals throughout the evening and early hours of the morning. It was submitted that those records show the data downloads or uploads on occasions were roughly every hour throughout the day and night on the weekends in question; sometimes less frequently and sometimes more frequently. It was conceded that the court could infer that that pattern of data usage occurred through some automatic or background function, not through any active user engagement with the phone, otherwise the phone user would not be getting any sleep. The defence submitted that that pattern can be contrasted with weekends established through photographs and otherwise tendered through Mrs Duncan which established that when the Duncan family were at Pinch River there was no pattern of data "buzzing" with uploads or downloads. Rather the pattern on those weekends established that the accused's mobile did not upload or download data on dates when he is known to have been at Pinch River. It was submitted by the defence that that inference could be drawn from the pattern shown on the data records notwithstanding the absence of expert evidence explaining it. It was submitted that on the particular weekends the Crown identified as available dates in 2019 for the accused to have taken RN and (redacted) to Pinch River, the data downloads and uploads continue which, it was submitted, was inconsistent with the evidence that there was no mobile telephone coverage at that campsite and inconsistent, it was submitted, with the pattern for other weekends when the accused was known to be present at Pinch River.
5. The defence submitted that the accused's evidence at the first trial admitting that he went camping to Pinch River with RN in 2019, but was unable to say when during that year, should be disregarded and that the accused could well be mistaken about camping with RN in 2019.
6. It was conceded by counsel for the accused, in my view correctly, that in the absence of expert evidence to explain the Telstra records used by Mrs Duncan to prepare her calendar, they were of limited use. Counsel for the accused conceded that because of the limitations, which she described as significant and inherent, the defence was not positively asserting that those records could accurately establish the accused's whereabouts during the 2019 year unless corroborated by other evidence such as photographs showing his whereabouts. Counsel for the accused also submitted that because of those limitations the evidence of Mrs Duncan did not amount to alibi evidence and was not relied on as such. That concession was properly made, and in any event no notice of alibi was served or relied on by the defence.
7. Counsel for the accused pointed to RN's evidence of camping with the accused every weekend or every second weekend when they were not in competition. It was submitted that in doing so RN was giving false evidence in order to create the largest amount of opportunity for the accused to have committed the offences. It was submitted that RN's evidence at the first trial that she went camping with the accused every weekend or every other weekend was unbelievable and unrealistic and that RN only qualified the reference to every or every second weekend as being those when not in competition as a recent addition to her evidence. It was accepted however that RN also told the police during her JIRT interview and at the first trial that she and the Duncans went to horse riding competitions throughout the year.
8. Counsel for the accused also pointed to RN's evidence that she believed the sexual touching occurred after her birthday in 2019, which was on 8 March 2019 and her other evidence that she thought that the touching may have occurred in June 2019. It was also submitted the evidence never suggested that the touching occurred during summer months because of the references to a campfire, times when it commenced getting dark and the sleeping equipment all suggested that the alleged conduct must have occurred in the cooler months. Counsel for the accused accepted that the calendars of events for various horse riding competitions in 2019 showed numerous events in April and later months and substantially less events in February and March 2019. Although it was submitted on behalf of the accused that in April or March, being summer months, there would not have been a campfire, although it was conceded that there was no evidence to establish temperatures at that location at that time.
9. Counsel for the accused conceded that she was unable to explain or make submissions about data records for 2 March 2019 which appear to establish, despite the Duncan family being at Pinch River, that the accused's phone was downloading or uploading data at various times between 2:55 am and 3:15 a.m.
10. It was submitted that the data and telephone records for the weekend of 8 June 2019, which was established in the first trial as being the weekend when the accused went camping to Pinch River with OO, showed a pattern of no telephone, no SMS and no data usage between 1:23 pm on 8 June 2019 and 11:20 am on 10 June 2019. It was submitted that phone and data records for the weekend between 8 and 10 November 2019 show the last entry at 2:56 pm on 8 November 2019, the phone coming back into reception for approximately two hours on 9 November 2019 and then no further phone, SMS or data records until 1:21 pm on 10 November 2019. It was submitted that that was consistent with the accused being in Pinch River with SC on that weekend and that the period of two hours or so for phone coverage on 9 November 2019 was consistent with the car journey to the huts. It was submitted the court could infer that during that drive the accused's phone came back into and then out of telephone reception coverage. It was accepted by Counsel for the accused that there was no evidence to establish that a one hour drive away from the Pinch River campsite would bring the telephone into reception area or that a four or five hours horse ride from that same campsite would not have the same result.
11. The defence submission about the phone and data records was that on weekends when the accused was known to be in the Pinch River area there was an absence of data downloads and uploads and the defence contrasted that with the weekends which the Crown pointed to as available weekends for the accused to have sexually touched RN at Pinch River where the data records show regular and frequent data downloads and uploads. It was submitted that those data entries appear to be occurring in the background without any user intervention, but it was submitted that whatever those data entries may mean, the fact that they occurred on the weekends the Crown points to distinguishes those weekends from weekends when the accused was known to be at Pinch River when there was a pattern showing no data entries. It was, however, accepted by Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence, expert or otherwise, about variables which can affect a mobile telephone's ability to communicate with cell towers such as environmental conditions, atmospheric conditions, network capacity and traffic and network changes during 2019 or other unknown variables.
12. In relation to the acquittal counts it was submitted on behalf of the accused that the court should consider those counts in the context of RN's evidence that the alleged touching around the campfire occurred in the full view of Z and that the three of them, RN, Z and the accused were sitting around the campfire together. On that basis counsel for the accused submitted that in acquitting the accused of those acquittal counts the jury must have taken issue with the complainant's reliability and credibility. It was submitted that that would concern the court in its findings of RN's reliability and credibility in relation to the counts on the present indictment.
13. On the topic of the inconsistencies in RN's evidence it was submitted that those inconsistencies were not small deviations or minor inconsistencies that one would expect as reasonably and naturally occurring in a young complainant giving evidence of events some years later. The defence submitted that they were inconsistencies which were clear and irreconcilable. RN, or so it was submitted by the accused, committed herself to one position and then when challenged on it committed herself to an alternative or opposite position. An example given by Counsel for the accused was RN's use of the word "always" and when pressed on that in relation to whether the zip on her swag was always done up then gave evidence that her use of that word was not intended to convey one hundred percent of the time. It was also submitted that RN used the word "always" in relation to the position of her swag in that she initially said that her swag was always in the middle and then later gave evidence that the accused's swag was in the middle. It was submitted that her evidence in relation to the issue of zippers and the position of the swags was unequivocal and mutually inconsistent. It was submitted that those inconsistencies were not explicable by change in memory, a slight oversight, some error or confusion. It was not accepted by Counsel for the accused that the initial use of the word "always" was explicable because of her youth and the youthful tendency to use hyperbole.
14. Counsel submitted that the contamination or collusion was established by evidence that RN had told Headspace that she believed that there may be allegations concerning the accused's conduct with SC and by her having a discussion with OO shortly before the first trial about SC giving evidence. The defence submitted that it could be inferred that contamination or collusion resulted in RN's change of evidence about the unzipping of her swag. It was submitted that the authorities that courts must treat suggestions of collusion or contamination that may be fanciful or without base as mere speculation did not apply in the present case. It was submitted that there was an exchange of information "to a very high level" between RN and OO and ongoing communication between the two of them including their discussion about the allegations made by SC.
15. It was submitted that RN's evidence of the touching of her bottom was vague and unsatisfactory. The accused pointed to the lack of evidence of RN moving, rolling or turning into a position where the accused had easy access to put his hand on her bottom. It was submitted that in the absence of any such evidence the court should find that her account of being touched in that manner was a fabrication. It was not accepted on behalf of the accused that a fully grown adult man of his size would be able to slide his hand underneath the bottom of a 13 or 14 year old girl in her sleeping bag. It was submitted that the accused could only have touched her bottom in the way she describes if she had turned over to lie on her front or moved in some way to expose her bottom. Although counsel did not submit that it was physically impossible for the touching to have occurred it was submitted that in the absence of evidence of turning or moving, the lack of easy access to her bottom would cause the court concern in relation to RN's credibility and reliability and would be sufficient to establish a reasonable doubt.
16. Further, in relation to the alleged touching in the swag, Counsel for the accused pointed to RN telling the police initially that she was not sure how long it went on for but then later giving evidence that it went for a significant period of time and that it occurred for "maybe about an hour or so". Later when asked about that in evidence RN said that that was what it felt like to her at that time.
17. Counsel for the accused described RN's evidence that she went camping with the accused every weekend or every second weekend when there were no riding competitions as an inconsistency that would cause the "greatest concern in relation to credibility and reliability". It was submitted that that claim by RN was not supported by objective evidence. It was submitted that a further inconsistency was RN's evidence that the accused organised camping and horse riding trips which was contrary to the evidence from Mrs Duncan that she organised the trips through RN's mother.
18. On the issue of complaint evidence, the defence submitted that the Crown had serious difficulties with the complaint evidence that had not been addressed. It was submitted that there were inconsistencies as to the timeframe, order and content of the complaints. In particular it was submitted that RN's evidence at first was that she first complained to KB then OO, but that in cross examination at the first trial she accepted that she first complained to OO then KB and then during this trial she reverted to her original position that the first complaint was to KB. It was submitted that the timeframe and sequence of the complaints created a serious doubt as to the complaint evidence. Counsel for the accused accepted that KB gave evidence that she had to encourage RN to make a complaint because she did not want to talk about it. It was expressly not submitted on behalf of the accused that RN was a sophisticated witness and that she would think that there was any significance in the order of the complaints, however it was submitted that the court could infer that she was aware of some importance relating to the timing of the complaints. It was accepted that RN's use of the word "V - line" was consistent with KB's evidence that RN had said that term to her. It was submitted however that OO denied that they have ever had any such conversation containing that level of detail. It was submitted on behalf of the accused that one of the complaint evidence witnesses must be misleading the court and the inconsistency of accounts could not have arisen from genuine or honest mistake. It was submitted that the end result was that the court should find that RN has made an entirely false complaint, fabricated as a result of contamination and collusion. It was submitted that despite the differences in the way the tendency witnesses and RN described the parts of their anatomy that they allege were touched, despite the differences in the words they used to describe each of their allegations and despite the reluctance for some of them to describe their genitals by name at all, the court should nonetheless find collusion between them resulting in a false complaint by RN. Alternatively it was submitted that, short of contamination resulting in a false complaint, the court would have grave concerns in relation to RN's reliability and credibility particularly in light of the acquittal counts.
19. It was submitted that there was no evidence to establish any collusion on the part of the witnesses from the Duncan family, particularly on the topic of hugging.
20. In relation to the evidence of OO it was submitted that a motive for her to lie had been established in that she was unhappy that the accused had taken one of her favourite horses off her and given it to (redacted) and that she wanted to purchase that horse cheaply. It was submitted that there was an inconsistency in OO's evidence that she initially said that her family did not have the money to buy the horse and therefore would not have had the conversation and her later evidence that the conversation did not take place and that she does not remember ever asking him to buy the horse. It was submitted that OO's visceral reaction when the motive to lie was put to her was an exaggerated change in her demeanour in light of the concession that the conversation might have happened but that she did not remember it.
21. In relation to the tendency witness HU, it was submitted that the court would find little assistance from her evidence because the nature of the allegations made by her were in a quite different category to the allegations made by RN. It was also submitted that the evidence from the schoolteacher Mr Shannon did not corroborate what HU said about the hugging incident but merely that she reported that the accused asked for a hug and it made her feel uncomfortable.
22. It was submitted that one or other of RN or OO were misleading the court as to the complaint conversation due to the mutually inconsistent accounts of that conversation. It was submitted that their different accounts could not be explained by either one or other of them being mistaken or having an imprecise memory. It was also submitted that OO's evidence was inconsistent in relation to the complaint she said she made to her mother and that her evidence of climbing into L's swag was inconsistent with the evidence from L. It was submitted that the inconsistency in relation to her complaint to her mother was that she had been offered a Vodka Cruiser drink by the accused but did not drink it and her evidence was that she did. In relation to the inconsistency with L it was submitted that although L gave evidence that she used an adult size swag she thought that she would have become aware if somebody had gotten into her swag with her.
23. In relation to SC's evidence about the car trip on the dirt road to the huts, it was submitted by the accused that her account generally supported that of the accused apart from the conclusion of the context in which his hand touched her leg. It was also submitted that SC's evidence was inconsistent in relation to the setup of the swags in that she initially gave evidence she and L set up the swags and then later said that the accused had set them up. It was also submitted that her evidence about whether her sleeping bag was zipped or unzipped was inconsistent because she initially said she did not like being in confined spaces but later agreed that the swag on the outside was zipped up and was itself a confined space, although not as confined as the sleeping bag.
24. It was accepted that it would not take much of an effort for an adult male, of the accused's approximate height, to reach over the swag of a child and undo a zip on the opposite side or that it would not take much of an effort for an adult male to reach down into the top of a swag and a sleeping bag. It was submitted that the position of zips was relevant only if RN or one of the tendency witnesses was using both one of the Duncans' swags and one of the Duncans' sleeping bags on the basis that Mrs Duncan's evidence established that the zippers on their swags and sleeping bags were on opposite sides of one another. It was submitted that that would require an unzipping on opposite sides first of the swag and then of the sleeping bag. It was conceded however that the defence were not submitting that it was physically impossible for the accused to have placed his arm and hand inside any of the swags, regardless of the number or position of the zippers.
25. It was submitted that there was a significant inconsistency between SC's evidence and L's evidence in that SC said that the morning after the alleged sexual touching she was crying and yet L gave evidence of never being aware of her crying. Although counsel for the accused accepted that SC's evidence was not that she cried in front of L, it was submitted that L did not see any physical signs of crying at any time.
26. It was submitted that even if the court were satisfied that the evidence of OO, SC and HU established the tendencies asserted by the Crown, any finding of those tendencies was insufficient to cure the deficiencies in RN's evidence.
27. It was submitted that the jury in the first trial must have entertained concerns about the reliability and credibility of RN's evidence in order to acquit the accused of those acquittal counts. Accordingly it was submitted that this court, in giving the accused the full benefit of the acquittals, and applying the legal directions set out in annexure A, would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to RN's reliability or credibility in relation to the counts on the indictment.
28. It was submitted that the court would have reasonable doubts in relation to the commission of both of the offences and the accused accordingly should be found not guilty of each offence.

The directions of the law

1. In considering the evidence and the submissions summarised above I remind myself of the legal directions which I have given myself, a copy of which is attached to this judgment and marked annexure A.

Assessment of witnesses

1. I find that HU was an honest and reliable witness. Despite her youth I am satisfied that her recollection was accurate in significant respects. She impressed me as sweet, innocent and not prone to exaggeration or embellishment. She gave her evidence in a compelling fashion.
2. SC impressed me as an intelligent, honest and straightforward witness. I found her to be measured when giving evidence even of a confronting and traumatic nature and I found her not to be prone to embellishment. I found her reluctance to describe the parts of her anatomy, which she initially described as her "private area" and later described by marking the genital area on an illustration of the female body, as consistent with her innocence and age. Her description that the accused's conduct caused her to feel terrified, not just on that camp, but for "the rest of my life" was compelling.
3. My assessment of OO was that she was a reliable, accurate and honest witness. She gave her evidence in a measured and reserved fashion and made appropriate concessions. She gave no indication that she was prone to embellishment. Her emotional responses at various points in her evidence were appropriate and understandable in light of her age and the confronting nature of many of the propositions put to her. I found that her evidence of her immediate reaction to the conduct alleged in becoming emotional, crying, scared, embarrassed and feeling as though she was somehow responsible is entirely consistent with common features of child sexual abuse because of the attendant trauma caused by such abuse and the shame felt by such a victim.
4. I find that RN was an honest and reliable witness. Despite some issues with her recollection of some details and despite some inconsistencies in her evidence, I am satisfied that her recollection was accurate in significant respects. She gave her evidence in a compelling fashion and with an understandable degree of emotion. That emotion is understandable in the context of her age when the alleged incidents occurred and the nature of the conduct alleged.
5. Each of the witnesses who gave evidence in the nature of complaint evidence as outlined above, KB, MM and ES did so in an honest and straightforward manner. I find that each gave evidence to the best of their recollection as to complaints made to them.
6. Turning to witnesses called in the defence case.
7. I accept that L and Z each gave evidence honestly concerning their recollections. However, their evidence did not greatly assist, particularly in relation to events that occurred when L was absent and at night when Z was likely to be asleep.
8. In relation to the accused's wife Angela Duncan I find that she made appropriate concessions and that she did not deliberately give false evidence. However, her evidence had significant limitations largely because she was not present at any of the relevant camping or horse riding weekends and because she was unqualified and unable to explain the Telstra telephone and data records.
9. I find that, although the accused's mother-in-law Mrs Treadwell did not deliberately give false evidence, her evidence of her recollections that she did not recall seeing anything unusual during an unremarkable morning when she picked up HU and L and drove them to school does not greatly assist the court.

Determination and findings of fact

1. I have carefully considered the evidence given by the accused. I take into account the directions I have given myself contained in annexure A in relation to assessing witnesses, including the accused and the proper approach to assessing the evidence of an accused witness.
2. The accused's account which is summarised above and in annexure A, effectively are denials of sexually touching RN in the way she alleges, denials of saying to RN "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush", and denials of being a sexually interested in RN. I found his evidence to be unsatisfactory and unconvincing. His evidence that it was impossible for him to have touched RN in her genital area because his arm was not 2 meters long was particularly unimpressive and impacted negatively on his credibility. I found it equally telling against his credibility that he gave evidence that it was impossible for him to have touched the bottom of a young girl at about the same time he is alleged to have touched her genital area because she must have been lying on her back and that would have been impossible, or so he said in his evidence, for him from that position to have also touched her bottom. It defies credibility that an adult man's hand could not easily slip underneath the small of a young girl's back in order to then touch her bottom even when she was lying on her back.
3. The accused's evidence in relation to denials that he touched RN in her swag because of the position of and the number of zips that he would have needed to have undone also impacted negatively on his credibility. His evidence that he never hugged children including (redacted) and the later change in that evidence as reflected in the pretext telephone calls with SC's parents also impacted negatively on his credibility. His assertion that he never said to RN "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush", can also not be accepted. His denial of saying that to her flies in the face of the evidence that he said it regularly and frequently including to other children and in the absence of any evidence suggesting that RN may have heard that expression from any other source.
4. I found the accused's evidence to be unsatisfactory and unbelievable in numerous other respects, including his evidence in relation to the tendency witnesses. The only aspects of his evidence which I find in his favour are in relation to the acquittal counts, in relation to which I give him the full benefit of his acquittals and his evidence that he went camping with RN and Z in 2019 because that evidence is supported by and consistent with other evidence.
5. It follows from my rejection of the accused's evidence as honest or reliable that I must therefore put his evidence to one side. It remains that I must still examine the evidence in the Crown case to determine whether or not I am satisfied that the Crown has established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of either of the counts.
6. Having separately considered the evidence of each of the tendency witnesses OO, HU and SC, I find that any inconsistences in their accounts were not of such significance for me to doubt the reliability or accuracy of any of them. I am satisfied that their evidence was true and unaffected by contamination or collusion. There was no evidence that any discussions amongst any of the tendency witnesses and RN contained such detail that it would contaminate them to enable them to give such detailed and varied accounts. To the extent there were inconsistencies or vagueness in some of their evidence, they were on topics that were not of significance and tangential to proof of the charges and not such as to impact on their credibility or reliability. Given their ages at the relevant times, it is entirely understandable that each remembered specific details about the sexual touching, but not tangential details. Their delays in complaining, or in not providing details when they did complain, are common features of child sexual abuse because of the attendant trauma caused by such abuse and the shame felt by such a victim. That is particularly so in this case because of the power imbalance and the age disparity between the accused and each of the tendency witnesses and RN, and because each of them was reliant on the accused to be able to continue to engage in the horse riding opportunities which the accused offered them and which they each enjoyed so much.
7. Accordingly, I find on the basis of the evidence of OO, HU and SC that the accused had the following tendencies: 1. a tendency to have a particular state of mind, namely a sexual interest in female children; and 2. a tendency to act on that in a particular way namely by sexually touching female children.
8. I have considered the evidence of the complaint witnesses KB and OO.
9. I am satisfied that evidence has established that RN complained to KB. I find that RN's complaint was prompted by KB saying "as long as you're not going to the bush" and that RN responded with some detail including that she did not want to go to the bush anymore because she did not like being there with the accused and then telling KB that the accused had touched her on her breasts and on her bottom. The absence of any detail in that complaint about the accused touching her on her genital area is unsurprising in the context of RN's age at the time and her reluctance to talk about the topic and is not such that causes me to doubt the accuracy or reliability of the complaint evidence.
10. I also accept that evidence has established that RN complained to OO. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the account of OO compared with the account of RN I am satisfied that the complaint was made. Differences in recollection of those two witnesses are entirely understandable in the context of their ages and the subject matter of the conversation. OO's response to propositions put to her in cross examination in the first trial that she was making up stories in conjunction with RN, during which she became visibly upset and incredulous, was entirely believable and supported her honesty, reliability and credibility.
11. Because I am satisfied that the evidence established that RN complained to KB and OO, in accordance with the directions in annexure A, I must then consider the way in which that evidence can be used. In the circumstances of the complaints I am satisfied that the evidence is relevant as additional evidence that RN was sexually touched in the way that she described and I accept that evidence as relevant to the truthfulness of RN's evidence of the sexual touching that she gave in court. The complaint evidence makes it more likely that RN is telling the truth about having been sexually touched by the accused. In so finding I am satisfied that RN acted in a way that I would expect her to act if she had been touched in the manner she alleges. The timing of RN's complaints, what she said, the circumstances in which she said those things and the way she appeared when making the complaints are all relevant matters which I have taken into account.
12. In addition I take into account the evidence of complaint to KB and OO as relevant to support the truthfulness of RN's evidence. I find the fact that RN complained when she did and in the circumstances in which she did makes it more likely that she is telling the truth about having been sexually touched by the accused in the manner alleged. As I have already indicated I consider that any differences between RN's account and the evidence of the complaint witnesses are not so significant that they adversely impact on RN's truthfulness, accuracy or reliability.
13. Turning to the evidence of whether the accused had an opportunity to offend as alleged in the period set out in the indictment, I have very carefully considered the evidence of Mrs Duncan and the evidence tendered through her of telephone records and data records. I accept the submission made on behalf of the accused that those records do not rise to the level of impossibility. That submission was correctly made because of the absence of expert evidence explaining those records. I also accept as correctly made the concession by counsel for the accused that the telephone and data records do not amount to evidence of alibi.
14. My finding in relation to whether the accused had an opportunity to offend during the period referred to in the indictment can be summarised as follows.
15. The accused gave evidence at the first trial in 2022, which was played in this trial, that he did attend Pinch River with RN and Z in 2019, although he could not say when in 2019. It is relevant in my view that when he gave that evidence in 2022 it was only three years after the alleged events occurred in 2019. Angela Duncan gave evidence in the first trial that she knew that RN went camping with her husband and (redacted) during 2017, 2018 and 2019, although she said that she was unaware of the precise dates when those camping trips occurred. Mrs Duncan also gave evidence that she was aware that camping trips involving only her husband, RN and (redacted) occurred at Pinch River.
16. Mrs Duncan's review of calendars, photographs, phone records and other data and her colour-coded calendar which became exhibit W do not amount to alibi evidence for the whole of 2019. Notwithstanding her work in compiling that calendar, Mrs Duncan herself accepted that there were times in 2019 when her husband could have been camping with RN and Z and she conceded that it was possible that they did so. As the Crown's summary of phone records in exhibit V establishes, there were three weekends in 2019, namely between 1 and 3 February 2019, between 14 and 16 June 2019 and between 9 and 11 August 2019 when there were considerable periods of time during which there is a complete absence of telephone calls made or received or text messages made or received by the accused or Z. Mrs Duncan conceded that she was unable to explain the absence of phone and text communications for those periods and she conceded that it was possible that for those periods the accused and Z were out of phone service at Pinch River. Mrs Duncan was unqualified and completely unable to explain what the defence submitted were patterns arising from data downloads and uploads on the mobile telephone over those same periods. In addition I find that the accused's opportunity to engage in the offending conduct during the indictment period is supported by the evidence of RN in relation to the photographs of 22 December 2018, namely they were not taken at Pinch River and the occasion at Pinch River when RN alleges the accused touched her was the last time that she went camping with the accused. I accept that that evidence, which I find to be honest and reliable, establishes that the occasion relevant to the present allegations of sexual touching must have occurred after 22 December 2018.
17. I also accept RN's evidence that the last occasion she went camping with the accused, and the occasion when she alleges he sexually touched her, roughly coincided with when OO commenced going into the bush with the accused which she said commenced in February 2019.
18. Further support for the accused having an opportunity to offend as alleged during the indictment period comes from the evidence of Z who gave evidence at the first trial that to the best of her recollection she went camping with the accused and RN at some time in 2019.
19. In light of those findings and the substantial and significant limitations on the data evidence obtained from Telstra by Mrs Duncan, I am satisfied that the Crown has established the accused had an opportunity to engage in the offending conduct as alleged during 2019 and in particular on one of the three date ranges in 2019 referred to in exhibit V.
20. Turning to the evidence of RN I take into account the directions in annexure A relating to the evidence of a critical witness.
21. In considering RN's evidence and in giving the accused the full benefit of the acquittal counts, I find that the acquittals establish that the jury in the first trial could not have been satisfied of RN's allegations relevant to those counts beyond reasonable doubt. However, the jury's failure to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of those acquittal counts does not cause me to doubt the credibility or reliability of RN's evidence in respect of the charges on the present indictment.
22. In relation to RN's evidence of uncharged acts, admitted for the limited purpose of context evidence, I take that evidence into account on the limited basis set out in annexure A as providing a basis upon which the court can better understand the evidence of the alleged touching relevant to the counts on the indictment and to establish that the allegations did not come out of the blue, had been ongoing for some time and had escalated in seriousness over time. I accept the context evidence on that basis. I also accept that that evidence goes some way to explain RN's delay and reluctance to complain.
23. I have examined the evidence of RN very carefully and having done that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that RN was a credible, reliable and truthful witness and I have satisfied myself that I can safely act upon her evidence to the requisite standard.
24. I have also satisfied myself that the evidence of RN is unaffected by contamination, concoction or collusion and that her evidence is not unreliable.
25. On the basis of RN's evidence as supported by other evidence in the trial I find the following facts: 1. In 2019, when she was 13 or 14 years of age, RN was an enthusiastic horse rider. She knew the accused and his family through her mother, a shared interest in horse riding and membership of the same pony club. 2. The accused befriended RN and provided her with opportunities to ride horses including in the Kosciuszko National Park. 3. The accused took RN and (redacted) on camping and horse riding trips to Pinch River at various times in 2017, 2018 and 2019. 4. On numerous of those trips the accused engaged in physical contact with RN including holding her hand, brushing his body past hers and touching her back, shoulders, stomach, bottom and leg. 5. On the last occasion RN went camping with the accused they went to Pinch River with (redacted) Z and during the car journey the accused held RN's hand. 6. The accused's swag was next to RN's swag on the last occasion they camped together at Pinch River and during the evening the accused put his hands into her swag and intentionally touched her breasts, stomach and bottom. 7. The accused engaged in that intentional touching for his own sexual gratification. 8. At that same place and on the same evening the accused intentionally touched RN's genitals through her clothing. 9. The accused engaged in that intentional touching for his own sexual gratification. 10. The accused's sexual touching of RN caused her immediately to feel scared, uncomfortable, unable to tell the accused to stop and unsure of what to do. 11. The next morning the accused told her "What happens in the bush, stays in the bush", and in doing so he was pressuring her to remain quiet and to not complain about his conduct. 12. During the drive home from Pinch River the accused held RN's hand and rubbed his thumb on her hand. 13. The offending conduct did not come out of the blue, in that the accused had touched RN on a number of previous occasions when camping together. 14. The last occasion on which RN went camping with the accused was in 2019 and was the same occasion when he sexually touched her relevant to the counts on the indictment. 15. The accused's conduct in sexually touching RN caused her to not go to the bush with him again. 16. I find that RN complained to KB and OO and that those complaints were unaffected by collusion or contamination. I take them into account in the way indicated above. I also find that RN was a somewhat reluctant complainant, that her first complaint to any adult in authority was to a counsellor at Headspace, that RN then reported the accused to the police and that, although she did not initially tell her mother because she was embarrassed, she then complained to her mother after the report to the police because they told her that there was likely to be an investigation. 17. I am satisfied that RN's reluctance to complain, and that her first complaint to any authority figure was to a counsellor at Headspace, are consistent with the way I would expect her to act in circumstances where she was young, frightened and uncertain and in circumstances where the accused had established a relationship of trust with her. 18. To the extent that there are any inconsistencies or vagueness in RN's evidence I find that those inconsistencies or vagueness are not on matters of any significance and do not adversely impact on my findings that RN was a credible and reliable witness. 19. Although issues such as the position and the number of zips, the precise location of the swags and the duration of any touching are, in my view inconsequential matters that do not impact on my findings above, I am nevertheless satisfied on the basis of RN's evidence as supported by Z's evidence that RN was in her own swag at the relevant time, not in a swag supplied by the accused. As I expressed numerous times during the trial the amount of time and attention devoted to tangential and insignificant issues such as the number and location of the zippers and the colour of the swags was disproportionate to the importance of those issues. 20. On the topic of RN's evidence as to how long the touching occurred for, I accept RN's evidence that it felt like an hour to her at the time. That evidence was entirely understandable in circumstances where she was frightened and confused while the touching continued. 21. In relation to RN's use of the word "always" I find that her use of that word does not adversely impact on her credibility or reliability. Rather, I accept her explanation as to her use of that word as indicating something less than 100%. That explanation is entirely understandable and believable in the context of a youthful tendency for inaccurate use of language and hyperbole. 22. My findings of her credibility, reliability and truth were also supported by the appropriate degree of emotion that RN displayed in the witness box and her demeanour generally.
26. I have no doubt that the elements of the count 1 offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have no doubt that the elements of count 2 offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
27. In relation to count 1, I find that between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, at Kosciuszko National Park in the State of New South Wales, the accused intentionally touched RN, by touching RN on her breasts whilst she was in her swag at the Pinch River campsite, the touching was sexual and RN was then a child between the age of 10 and 16 years, namely 13 or 14 years old.
28. In relation to count 2, I find that between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, at Kosciuszko National Park in the State of New South Wales, the accused intentionally touched RN, by touching RN through her clothes on her genitals whilst she was in her swag at the Pinch River campsite, the touching was sexual and RN was then a child between the age of 10 and 16 years, namely 13 or 14 years old.
29. Accordingly, having regard to the whole of the evidence and taking into account the various directions of law which I am required to take into account and taking into account the extensive submissions by the Crown and the defence, I find the following verdicts: Count 1: Guilty. Count 2: Guilty.
30. The accused is convicted of both counts. Annexure A (189821, pdf) ******** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 September 2024