RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148 | Case summary

RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148 | Case summary | Zoe

Background

The complainant was born in January 2002 and was 21 years old when she gave evidence at the trial. The applicant is her father; his wife is her mother; and she has a brother, BM, who is about four years older than she is. The complainant was born with a congenital heart disease which required several operations, including an aortic valve replacement on 21 July 2014, when she was 12. The effect of this disease was that the complainant had considerably less energy than her peers, was sometimes out of breath and could not do a lot of exercise or activities which required exertion. She needed help with day-to-day tasks, such as washing her hair and doing laundry.
The complainant grew up in a suburban house near Mount Druitt with the applicant, her mother, BM and her maternal grandparents. Her parents had lived in the house since about 1994. The complainant initially occupied one bedroom in the house (her original bedroom) but after she came home following her heart surgery she moved to a larger bedroom in the house, which was off the kitchen and dining rooms (her second bedroom). Her parents always occupied the same bedroom in the house, as did her brother.
Between 2011 and 2017 the applicant worked night shifts and was generally not home at night time. According to the complainant's mother, in July 2020, the applicant was working in Lidcombe as a forklift driver and had been in that position for the previous nine and a half years, having started in the "night shift, and then he went to afternoon shift". When he did the night shift, he would leave home at about 8pm and come home at around 5am. When he was working afternoon shifts, he would start at about 1pm or 1.30pm and would typically return home at around 9pm. He worked five days a week. The complainant's mother would go to bed at around 9.30pm but the applicant would "normally stay up for a couple of hours to wind down [and] watch a movie or TV or play on the PlayStation … in the lounge room or in the other room [the spare room]".
The complainant agreed that sometimes when she was unwell at night, she would call out for help. Sometimes she would vomit and the applicant would "sometimes" "come and help [her]". She recalled that he usually wore pyjamas but agreed that sometimes he was wearing a night shirt but not pants. The complainant's mother confirmed in cross-examination that the complainant would become quite ill when she had her period and "would often vomit". Because her mother would be sick if someone vomited, it was the applicant who would help the complainant when she was vomiting. She said that the complainant would "scream quite loudly" when she needed assistance. She also said that sometimes the applicant would wear a night shirt without pants to bed.

[2]

Count 1: indecent assault in latter part of 2011

When the complainant was about nine, she was in her original bedroom when she woke up after having a nightmare. She went into her parents' bedroom and told her mother, "I had a nightmare, I'm just going to come in". She climbed into the bed between her parents, "in the middle, a bit more closer to my mum". The applicant pulled her closer to him. The complainant heard "a bit of a snore" from her mother, who was facing away from her towards the wall. She was wearing pyjamas but no underwear because she did not wear underwear under her pyjamas.
The complainant said that she felt the applicant rubbing her chest before his hand moved down to her groin area and "start[ed] to rub [her] vagina area". She said that she "tried to … push it away a bit … [and] … just … wriggled away". At that point, the complainant "just moved away and went back to sleep". He touched her for "[a]bout ten to 15 minutes". She explained that he rubbed her chest over her pyjamas for about five minutes before moving to the outside then inside of her thigh for about five minutes. He then slowly moved his hand under her pyjamas and was rubbing up and down.
In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that she said in a statement to police dated 21 July 2020: "He did try to put his hand down the front of my underwear, but I shuffled around to avoid him going into my underwear."
The cross-examination continued: "It wasn't correct to tell the Court that you weren't wearing underwear. A. I guess."
During the incidents the complainant did not say anything. She "only just kind of thought, like, this is a bit uncomfortable". The applicant did not say anything either. According to the complainant, the next morning "it never really got talked about".
In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that although she was uncomfortable about what happened, she continued to sleep in her parents' bed "sometimes". She agreed that "sometimes" when she went into bed with her parents, the applicant "would hop out and go and sleep somewhere else".
The complainant's mother said that she and the applicant had a queen-sized bed until her fortieth birthday when the applicant purchased a king-sized bed. She recalled that from a young age the complainant would come to their bed as she "had a lot of nightmares". The complainant would "wriggle around a lot" and "disturb" her parents, but, according to the complainant's mother, she was the one who was mostly disturbed because she was a light sleeper whereas the applicant was a heavy sleeper who snored "very loudly".
The complainant's mother gave evidence that the applicant told her one morning when the complainant was in bed with her and the applicant, "he woke up and she was holding onto his penis". The complainant's mother said that the complainant was, at this time, "only young. Maybe … four or five". As far as she could recall, the applicant told her "a day or so later". She accepted that she had said in her police statement of 21 July 2020 that the complainant was eight when the applicant told her about this event but she maintained that she was unsure of the age but knew that she was "only young". The complainant's mother gave evidence that after that incident, she and the applicant decided that the complainant ought stop sleeping in their bed and sometimes her mother would go and sleep in her bed with her. However, the complainant would still come to her parents' bed. The complainant's mother said that the complainant did not tell her that the applicant was doing anything to her when she was in their bed.
The complainant's mother agreed that when her son's fiancée was staying over, the complainant and the fiancée ("the two girls") would sleep in her son's bed and BM would sleep in the complainant's bed.

[3]

Count 2: indecent assault between January and March 2012

After the complainant's tenth birthday, she was at home with her parents and BM, having dinner. The complainant said that she was going to have a shower. Normally, her mother would wash her hair but this time her father insisted on helping the complainant because the complainant recalled that her mother had had back problems "for a long time … as long as [she] can remember". The complainant's mother agreed that she first had back problems "[a]round 2013" and that she had also had "surgeries on her hands … [and] arms" which made it difficult for her to help wash the complainant's hair.
The complainant agreed that she generally showered after 6pm. She also agreed that the heart surgeries she had had made it difficult for her to raise her arms up to wash her hair so she would ask for help to do so and the applicant was the one who "just came in". She said that when her father helped her wash her hair, the bathroom door was closed.
The complainant recalled that after she had undressed and got into the shower, the applicant came into the bathroom, undressed and got in with her. She turned around so that she could not see him naked ("because, you know, he's my dad"). The complainant said: "… he was just right behind me and I could kind of feel like being pressed against him … I could feel like his penis, against like my lower back. … It was hard. … I just felt uncomfortable. I wasn't really too sure like what to feel because I was really only young and I didn't really know what was happening. … [This happened] [d]uring and just a bit after [he was washing my hair]."
She recalled the applicant's penis being against her lower back for "[a]bout five minutes". The applicant then told her that he had finished washing her hair. She "stepped out and started to get dry" and he "just continued his shower". The complainant described her reaction as follows: "I mean I remember just feeling like - that - like I wasn't too sure what was happening. Like, it was all a bit confusing, but the one thing I do remember is, like, feeling him kind of maybe stare at me through the shower. I mean I never actually turned around and saw, but it kind of just felt like he was watching me get dry."
The complainant was cross-examined about her height (she denied that she was a "tall person") and said, "I'm not too sure" when asked to explain how, given that she was short, the applicant's penis was able to be pressed into her lower back.
BM gave evidence that when he was growing up, the applicant set a rule that when he or the complainant was in the shower, the other child had to be in their room "because we're going through puberty around the same time".

[5]

Count 4: aggravated sexual intercourse without consent between 21 July 2014 and 31 December 2014

In August 2014, after the complainant's heart surgery, she was in bed in her second bedroom. She was lying down but she "had been complaining about [her] feet being sore". In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that when she was growing up she had flat feet. She recalled that the applicant got an electric massager which he used to massage her feet "once or twice". The complainant's mother's evidence was that if she tried to give the complainant a foot massage, the complainant complained that she did not "do it hard enough … Daddy does it better".
The complainant said that it was "about night time". The applicant "came in and had offered to give [her] a foot massage", to which she agreed. When the complainant "had started to get tired and like sleepy, he kind of just asked [her] … if [her] calves were sore." She did not respond to this. The applicant then started to move his hands above her knee and moved next to her in the bed. He massaged her thighs over her pyjamas and then pulled her pyjamas down and moved her legs apart and started "using his tongue to lick [her] vagina". He continued for "about ten or 15 minutes". She described it as "kind of up and down and also kind of like side to side and around". She said: "I was kind of just laying flat, and just … felt paralysed in a way, like I just didn't know what to do or how to move. But after a while, I had tried to like close my legs, but he would try to like kind of keep them open … he wouldn't move his head away … [f]rom [her] vagina."
When asked to describe how the incident ended the complainant said: "He had kind of just stopped and tried to pull my pants back up, and then turned the lights off, like, I can't remember which ones it was, if it was the lounge room ones or the kitchen one. But yeah, he'd turn off the lights and then after that then I just kind of sat in my bed crying because I just didn't know what had happened."

[8]

Count 6: aggravated sexual intercourse in about 2015 or 2016

When the complainant was 13 or 14, it was night-time and she was in bed in her pyjamas. She had sore feet and the applicant offered to give her a foot massage. She said: "He had asked that question again, 'Are your calves sore?' And he would then continue up along my knees and up to where my calves are. And then I again then tried and not really move. He had then started to become naked [by taking off his pyjamas and his pants]."
She continued: "He had taken my pants off as well and had the blanket kind of over him and me, because he was kind of now over on top of me [and] he would grab his penis [which was hard] and put it near my vagina … and then he had begun to kind of move his hips, like - in, like, a sideways motion. [His penis] was never in, but it was, like, almost in."
The following exchange occurred: "Q. Would you agree if I said the outer lips of the vagina were the labia majora? Do you understand that term? A. Yes. Q. If you think about your labia majora and you think about where the accused's penis was at the time that you're telling us about, was it outside the lips of the labia majora or inside the lips of the labia majora or something else? A. It was, kind of, like, both, in a way. It was, kind of, like in the middle ground. Like, it would never - kind of, yeah. Q. You say both. Do you mean at different times? A. Yeah."
According to the complainant, this continued for "about 15 to 20 minutes". She could feel his penis on her clitoris but said that it was "hardly reaching" her labia majora. The complainant did not recall that he had ejaculated but did recall that the applicant was "trying to find [her] pants", which she was "pretty sure … were in the bed somewhere" and that "he tried to put [her] pants back on and [she thought] he went to the bathroom". After he had finished putting his penis near her vagina "[h]e was kind of just breathing really heavily".
She agreed in cross-examination that the applicant did these things to her with her bedroom door wide open.

[10]

The complainant's involvement with Headspace

When the complainant was in year 7 or 8, she went to Headspace, which is "a company that has counselling that you can talk to". It was accepted that the complainant was 13 when she was in year 7 and 14 in year 8. The complainant said that at Headspace: "We talked about how I could, like, ways to help relieve my anxiety and my depression."
She agreed that those things helped her with the cutting. She could not recall how long she had gone to Headspace for but said that it "would have been … months". Although the complainant cut herself after she stopped going to Headspace, it continued "[m]aybe, like, a couple of months after but not as frequent as I did before". The complainant also experienced "dark figures … in [her] mind" as a result of "anxiety". She saw the dark figures from the time she first started cutting herself until she finished talking to Headspace.
In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that the applicant noticed that she was cutting herself in late 2015 and that she told her parents that they were from her bird Sonny. Her parents took her to her general practitioner to get a referral to Headspace. She confirmed that she was also hearing voices at the time as well as seeing and hearing things that were not there. The complainant also confirmed that she went to her Headspace appointments by herself. She was asked whether there were any problems at home and agreed that at the time she went to Headspace, she had "heart problems" and, in December 2015, her grandfather had cancer. She agreed that she said nothing to Headspace about her father but insisted that the cutting was to do with him.
Between 28 January 2016 and 8 August 2016, the complainant participated in the Headspace Youth Early Psychosis program. She agreed, by reference to the discharge summary which she was shown in cross-examination, that she told them that her grandfather had cancer and that she had had heart surgeries which led to her being bullied at school. She also agreed that she had told them that she was distressed about a breakup with her boyfriend in May 2016 (Exhibit 1). She agreed that she had told Headspace that she had not self-harmed since January 2016 and said that she had done so because she "didn't want to keep seeing Headspace". The complainant also agreed that she told Headspace that she "had a normal family life".
The complainant was shown an article from the Daily Telegraph, entitled "[The complainant's] story", which was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant with her parents. She agreed in cross-examination that the article referred to her hearing voices in her head and being visited by a little boy. She also agreed that she had said (as reported in the article), "The voices made me hurt myself because they made me feel worthless". She agreed that the article said that Headspace helped her.
The complainant's mother said that the reason for the complainant being sent to Headspace was because she and the applicant noticed "some scratches on [the complainant's] legs". She confirmed in cross-examination that it was the applicant who raised a concern about the marks. The complainant said that they were "from the bird" (she had a cockatiel). The complainant's mother said, "Well, I need to have a look because you don't want to get an infection." She explained that she was concerned about infection because of the complainant's heart condition. The complainant's mother recalled this conversation occurred at Christmas time when the complainant was 14. When her mother examined the scratches, she: "… noticed that they were not what a bird would do. They seemed to be straight lines. They weren't just like little scratches."
When the complainant's mother pressed her for an explanation, the complainant said, "I've been hearing - hearing voices, seeing people that aren't there, that no-one else can see, and I've been harming myself.". According to her mother, the complainant "wouldn't say why she was doing it. She just said those - that voices were telling her to do it".
The complainant's mother's recollection was that the conversations about the cuts occurred on Christmas Day. After lunch with the complainant's mother's family, they took the complainant to Nepean Hospital. After assessment, the suggestion was made that the complainant go to Headspace.
Her mother said that the complainant went to Headspace for about 12 months and that, after that time, the complainant did not complain about hearing or seeing things that were not there or experiencing hallucinations.

[15]

Complaint to WB, the complainant's boyfriend

When the complainant was 17, she had a boyfriend, WB. WB gave evidence that he and the complainant met in about October 2019 and became boyfriend and girlfriend on 30 November 2019. They remained in a relationship until the beginning of 2021. At that time, WB was living with his parents, his twin brother and his younger sister. WB and the complainant spent time together at each other's parents' places. WB estimated that in the period between the end of November 2019 and July 2020, he visited the complainant's home about ten times and met the applicant, the complainant's mother and her brother. WB said that when he was at the complainant's house, her parents made them leave her bedroom door open. WB was doing the HSC in 2020.
According to the complainant's mother: "[The complainant] said, 'When I'm 18, I'm out of here, I'm moving out', and she was dating [WB] at that time. … In the beginning, she didn't [say she wanted to move out with WB], but then when she was dating him, she said, 'Yeah, we're going to move out, and we're going to - as soon as I turn 18.'"
The complainant's mother's response was: "… we [the complainant's mother and the applicant] were just like you're not going to move out, you're only working a couple of hours, you won't be able to afford it, you know, he's got to go to - he's supposed to be going to college, it was just like, I didn't take her seriously."
She said that the complainant raised the topic "several times". The complainant's mother agreed that WB's parents would not let the complainant stay over and that she and the applicant did not allow the complainant's bedroom door to be closed when WB was with the complainant.
According to WB, the complainant first told him in the first half of 2020, when she was 18, about being sexually abused by the applicant. WB said that the complainant had attended his sister's ninth birthday party the week before. The complainant told him that she had become quite uncomfortable because attending the party had caused her to recall "some memories of when she was around that age" (when her sexual abuse by the applicant started). WB said that, around a week after his sister's birthday party, the complainant had told him about the sexual abuse, including oral sex with her father in the shower and "[i]nappropriate touching in her bedroom". According to WB, the complainant told him that "it mainly occurred during the ages of nine to 14". WB recalled that she also told him that the applicant would come into her bedroom and touch her thighs or her breast and that the applicant would also come to the bathroom when she was younger to help her wash her hair.
The complainant said that she first told WB about what had been happening to her because she had had a nightmare about something her father had done to her in the past. When she woke from the nightmare, she messaged WB and told him: "That I'd had a nightmare about - really I just explained what happened in the nightmare and I'd then gone on to tell him that since I was about nine till now, that dad has been sexually touching me, in those terms."
The complainant and WB then discussed what she should do about what the applicant had been doing to her. According to WB, the complainant "wanted some support for the trauma, and she also wanted to go to the authorities as well at some point". He said: "I recall [the complainant] saying if an event had occurred again with her father, that she would immediately go to the authorities, but her main focus at that time that she told me was she needed psychological and emotional help."
When the complainant told WB, he went downstairs and asked his parents if the complainant could stay the night, which led to her staying for one night. He recalled having a discussion with the complainant that this "was for short-term basis to not be at her parents' house, at her primary residence". WB explained in his evidence: "Initially, when [the complainant] had told me about the abuse the first time, and when I asked my parents if she could stay overnight, the concern was was she in any immediate danger, which she said she wasn't. She felt uncomfortable, but she believed she wasn't in immediate danger."
On 30 June 2020, WB sent an email in the following terms to the Blue Knot Foundation: "l am emailing this on behalf of my dear girlfriend, who has recently disclosed with myself sexual childhood trauma that she has experienced. The following has been read over by my girlfriend, and she has consented to me sending this information to the foundation. We understand that due to this not being reported to the police -I would be disclosed as a witness and l accept the responsibility of this. Since the age of 9, my girlfriend (now aged 18), has been dealing with frequent sexual behaviours from her father. This has involved touch of her breasts, thighs and genitals, as well as forcing her to suck his own genitalia. lt is still continuous to this very day, and although lessened, there still have been numerous times that her father has tried to make her touch and sexually engage with him. My girlfriend has never told anyone, and has only opened up to me about this recently. Upon being told of this, I found the Blue Knot Foundation. I understand my girlfriend does not exactly meet the specifications of the foundation, with the main focus of more mature Australians with past traumas of sexual assault. If you believe the foundation would be able to help, we would greatly appreciate a return. …"
The complainant gave evidence that she and WB wrote the above email together. They chose the Blue Knot Foundation because their research indicated that she could stay anonymous and she "didn't want to go legal yet … because [she] was still quite scared".
On 2 July 2020, the complainant (who used the pseudonym, "Honey") sent the following email to the Blue Knot Foundation: "Hello and Greetings Blue Knot Foundation, My partner, [WB], messaged two days ago, outlining the issues that I am currently facing, The email that he attached was not in use, and instead this email will be the one that I will be using for the future to talk to the foundation. Your response has ensured there are little to no concerns now about confidentiality. I was very concerned about the communication being confidential at first, ensuring I could decide when the correct time to tell authorities, then family, would be. In the email you suggested to call the Blue Knot Foundation, however I would like to wait until I am with my partner (we do not live together). This would most likely be on the Sunday or Monday, depending on schedule. My current email is not my actual name, nor was the email attached in the original email that my partner sent. However, I would like to the use the name "Honey" for the mean time, until I feel comfortable with using my actual name with the foundation. I would first like to understand my different options in going forward, on what treatments are available for myself, and what intervention could occur. My partner and I have had a discussion over the past few days, and my own plan is to understand all of the possible options, to ensure I choose the option I am most comfortable with (family intervention, living situation etc.). A significant question I had to ask was the following: Do l need to commit to a specific time frame on the Sunday or Monday to call? I could give you a rough time frame of when I would be able to call, and would this be needed? One other significant question was my housing situation. I am still currently living at home, which means I still have my father present physically, and I do not feel safe or comfortable within my own home. A possibly [sic] would be to live with my partner for several days at a time (sleeping over), which my own parents would be comfortable with. I could not go with other family members, as this would raise suspicion, which I currently do not want to face. In saying this, living with my partner would then mean l would have to tell his own parents partially about the current situation, which would be a lot easier than telling my own family (for the moment). Do you think this is a realistic plan or idea? I would like to hear your feedback on this please. Thank you for taking your time to reply to our first email, and I hope to hear back from the foundation soon."
The complainant explained in her evidence in chief that she created the email address because she "was still very scared about people knowing". She said: "I didn't want it to go, like, to the police, and for anything to happen because I wasn't ready for any of that because I'd only just talked to [WB]. … I was scared of what my dad was going to do if he found that I told someone."
When cross-examined about the reference in her text message to telling WB's parents being easier than telling her own, the complainant said that she "just thought maybe that was the only way that it was able to happen". She denied that "it" was a reference to moving in with WB.
WB explained in his evidence: "I can recall that another reason why [the complainant] didn't want to immediately go to the police is she wanted to have control on when people would know, when she would be comfortable with her mother or anyone else knowing about the incidents."
WB also said that the complainant was scared about telling family members about what happened because she was "scared about not being believed about the incidents" and "also mentioned housing security as well in terms of if she did tell her mother about it, she might actually have to leave her home". WB agreed that the complainant had not used the term "housing security" and that the complainant had "been talking about [how] she didn't want to leave the family home". In cross-examination, WB said that the complainant was worried about telling her mother because it might mean that she could not live at home anymore and she "didn't have the financial support to sustain her own living accommodation".
WB said in re-examination that he and the complainant had discussed moving in together but this was "for the future", by which he meant "[l]ater down the track, several years into the relationship".
On 3 July 2020 at 12.10am, the complainant texted WB and told him that the applicant "just tried to do something" but that she "was able to stop it from whatever it was he wanted to do" and that she "was too sleepy to know what he was trying". She explained in a further text message: "He just got into the shower which is why I texting you …"
Later that morning, after about 5.35am, the complainant sent WB further text messages, including the following: "I'm going to tell you something but you have to promise me you won't do anything about it … This is something I have never told a soul … Whenever I have a nightmare or I get scared I'm in the dark alone and also why I think become a little when I'm sleepy. [WB] when I was younger my dad - he essentially raped me and touched me. Please you can't do anything about this okay?"
The timing of the disclosure in this text message would appear to be inconsistent with WB's email to the Blue Knot Foundation on 30 June 2020 (which indicated that the complainant had already told him then). However, nothing was made of this at trial or on appeal and it is, accordingly, not necessary to address it further.
In the course of the same series of text messages, the complainant messaged: "And this is also the reason why I like to go to your house more often be[c]ause I feel safer there th[a]n my own home And also another reason for why I want to move out so quickly".
In cross-examination, the complainant confirmed that she did not want to move out with WB, who was then living with his parents who were strict about not letting her stay over and with whom she did not get along. She agreed in cross-examination that WB's parents did not let her move in and wanted her to go to a hotel instead. In re-examination, the complainant said that when she told WB's parents that she was not safe at home, they "told [her] that they were going to book [her] a hotel and an Uber to go to like a safe place".
In the same series of text messages which began at 5.35am on 3 July 2020, the complainant also said: "Just so you know, no he didn't take my virginity because he never put it in, mainly because I was too fricking young. … Also another reason why he never went in is because he always came on my sheets or on me."
The complainant was cross-examined about this text as follows: "Q. …You've said there to [WB] that 'He always came on my sheets or on me.' Do you agree that you've not given any evidence whatsoever about your father ever ejaculating either on you or on your bed or your sheets? A. Yep. Q. Your evidence is in fact that he didn't ejaculate on any of the occasions, is that right? A. It was the fact that I didn't know."
The text messages which the complainant sent to WB in the early morning of 3 July 2020 also included the following: "The thing I hate most about it, is the fact he was always so gentle about it."
On 11 July 2020, the complainant and WB phoned 1800RESPECT, an organisation to which she had been referred by the Blue Knot Foundation. WB recalled that they had gone to a public park near the Westfield Shopping Centre at Parramatta where it would be quiet so that they could make the call. WB recalled that, before making the call, the complainant told him that she wanted guidance about directly accessing help.
The transcript of the call recorded: "[The complainant] Well really it kind of stopped -- not really stopped-stopped but um - it stopped more like -when I was probably like 14 -- stopped being like really really like -- how do I say? … from 9 to 14 - like essentially was like [WB] Sexual assault -- it was essentially sexual assault -- there was times of basically forcing Honey or basically so like -- oral sex - touching her genitalia, her breasts, her thighs and essentially Honey's own mother had a back injury several years ago and so during Honey's childhood, it was her own father who would mostly be with her in terms of [The complainant] Like washing hair - … And looking after me -- uh yeah coz like, he would always be home as well -- because mum was in and out of hospital getting her back checked and stuff -- and especially when she wasn't home like he would basically act upon it- ever since I was 14 he kind of- like it slowly started to stop getting that like uh like [WB] Intense [The complainant] Yeah, intense. Yeah, it wasn't until I got a bit older- that was when I started to realise, this isn't actually a normal thing that happened - yeah because most of the time now he waits until I'm asleep to do anything … say if I was cleaning the kitchen or something, he would like put his hand like on my hips to go grab something - or like if I've - so, my legs, he'd like touch all the way up to my thighs and then go down -- or like - yeah … [WB] essentially when Honey can get very exhausted, very tired - uh her personality kind of changes a bit and uh she becomes a bit uh more agreeing of the circumstances I guess you could say- so say, for example, uh Honey was staying at my house -- what do you want to do Honey? Do you want to watch another movie, or do you just want to go to bed? And Honey doesn't have any kind of opinion and really just kind of goes with whatever I may say- and she also becomes a childlike just with her vocabulary and kind of how she's speaking, it's a bit lighter and a bit childish -"
Towards the conclusion of the conversation, the complainant told the counsellor that she would tell her best friend about it because she did not yet know.
Later in the evening on Saturday 11 July 2020 at 9.21pm, the complainant, who was at home at the time, sent three messages to LR. In the third message she said: "Okay so I know this might be a shock but like ever since I was 9 dad used to sexually abuse me, it's not that frequent anymore it's more or less not that dominant in me it's more like touching my hips when I'm bending down and stuff like that. If you have any questions just ask."
In cross-examination, the complainant said that when she said that it was "not that dominant", she "meant that it didn't happen as often".
Soon after sending the text messages, the complainant said that she went to LR's house and told LR. LR then told her mother, DL, who joined them. The complainant told them: "That I was nine when it first started to happen - when he first started to sexually abuse me, up until that age, until I was 18."
LR's recollection was that the complainant came to stay at her house for the weekend of 11-12 July 2020. Her evidence was: "[The complainant] had probably come over maybe around mid-morning, midday. She would come over like during the day and we'd spend the day together, and then she would sleep in my room for the night."
LR described the circumstances and substance of the disclosure as follows: "So, it was in the evening. It was probably around 9.30 after everyone else had gone to bed because she didn't want to have the discussion in front of the rest of my family. So, we went in my room. … So, she was quite nervous, and she had [WB] on FaceTime at the time because she had said that she wanted to tell me something. I could see that she was really stressed and she was having trouble trying to put it into words. So, I suggest to her that she write it in a text message and send it to me, and that was when she disclosed that she had been sexually abused by her father since she was nine."
In her evidence, LR identified the text message extracted above which the complainant had sent to her after 9.21pm. LR's evidence was: "Well, I was obviously quite surprised. It wasn't something that I was aware of, and we both started crying because we were very close at that time, and I was hurting for her. So, I gave her a big hug and I said, 'Do you want to talk about it?', and she said, 'I don't want to talk about the worst of it', and then she reiterated that it was at the - at that time, it was mostly he would come up behind her and touch her hips and make her uncomfortable …"
DL recalled that LR was with the complainant in her bedroom and then they both came down and spoke to her in the lounge room. DL's evidence was: "Well, [LR] was telling me that [the complainant] has [t]old her something, and she wanted to let me know too, so - because she was - didn't know what to do, so I'd become somewhat of a confidant for [the complainant], so she wanted to speak to me, so we spoke about the fact that her father had been abusing her for quite some time. … Yes, she said that he would come into her room at night and masturbate in her room while she was there, and sometimes would even hop into bed with her. … [S]he said it [had been happening] for many years, since she was younger. I don't know the timeframe of how long, but I understand it was years and years."
By the time of this disclosure, DL had met the complainant a "number of times" as she "used to come over and stay at [DL's] place occasionally".

[16]

Counts 10 and 11: unlawful sexual touching and unlawful carrying out of sexual act on 19 July 2020

WB said that on the evening of 19 July 2020, between about 6pm and 8pm, he had had a two-hour long video call with the complainant. He said that he would have been finishing off his homework and would have eaten his dinner at home.
The complainant's mother said that the evening of 19 July 2020 was: "Just a normal night. We have - we had dinner together. Then [the applicant] went to work. … I normally went - um between nine, 9.30, I normally went to bed. … It probably would have only been [the complainant] and I because [the applicant] wouldn't be home for dinner … [b]ecause he was working. … He would start at 1 - 1 o'clock in the afternoon, so [would finish his shift at] 8 o'clock, or 8.30, I think it was, and then - so normally, myself and [the complainant] would have dinner together … [and the applicant would typically get home] [a]round 9 o'clock."
At about 11pm that evening, after BM had had a shower, the complainant was lying in her bed, wearing a red jumper, trying to get to sleep. The lights in her bedroom were off but the kitchen or loungeroom lights were still on. She was lying on her back closing her eyes when the applicant came into the room, stood next to the bedside table and pulled his pants down. He tried to touch her chest with one hand but she had her hands crossed over her chest. His other hand was "stroking" his penis, which was about 20cms away from her. When asked how the episode ended, the complainant said: "Well, he was never able to move my hands and he put up his hands and left the room. And if I recall, he went to the bathroom. … [b]ecause after a couple of seconds, maybe a minute, he flushed the toilet."
BM recalled that evening he came home from work and went to bed. He heard "people" outside his room between midnight and 1am. He could hear the applicant's voice and his mother's voice and was "pretty sure" that he could also hear the complainant's voice. He could not hear what they were talking about but said that they were "[w]hispering, maybe. It was later at night, so they were probably trying to keep quiet". He subsequently said that he was "certain that [he] heard [the complainant's] voice", "I could hear Dad and my sister's voice".
The complainant's mother recalled seeing the applicant asleep in their bed that night at about 2am when she got up to go to the bathroom.

[17]

The complaint about counts 10 and 11 to WB and LR

Shortly after this incident, on the evening of 19 July 2020, the complainant messaged WB. The first message was sent at 11.31pm. The complainant told WB that she had just had a nightmare which "felt so real". In subsequent messages, she said: "He was jacking off in front of my face And he tried moving my hand And tried getting to my breasts … My heart is pounding [WB] oml [Oh my Lord] it actually happened Im scared He tried so hard to move my hand … He[']s just having a shower …"
When the complainant was asked about the sequence of events, the following exchange occurred: "Q. In those messages that I've just read to you, you talk about two things. You talk about the nightmare, the nightmare that we've talked about, and you also talk about what you say the accused did to you - actually did to you - in the bedroom, okay. You understand? Tell us about the sequence that you recall? What happened first? What order did those things happen in? A. I had the nightmare, and then he did something. Q. How long before he did something, did you have the nightmare? Was it? A. It was immediately after, pretty much."
The messages record that she and WB had a video chat and also that she said that they should tell LR in the group chat.
WB's recollection was that he and the complainant had a video call which lasted about "ten to 20 minutes". He said: "Within the video call, [the complainant] was crying. She was overwhelmed, rapid - rapid breathing, short sentences, and she'd said that her dad had just come in and had masturbated in front of her while she was half - half asleep."
He also recalled that the complainant had told him that she was in her bedroom and the applicant was "to the side of the bed".
At 12.13am on 20 July 2020, the complainant put some messages on the group chat (between her, WB and LR), including: "[The complainant] So I had a really vivid nightmare about dad doing things to me and then minutes later he comes into my room and --- [WB] Essentially was touching himself in front of a half asleep [complainant] … [The complainant] Touching himself by literally touching his penis right in front of my face".
LR woke up at 8.30am and joined the chat at 8.31am. She explained in her evidence: "I was asleep and I'd - I wasn't awake when it happened, but I received a text message from [the complainant] saying that she had had a very vivid dream about her father doing things to her. She didn't want to continue the message. So, [WB], who was in the group chat, because it was a group chat between the three of us, he had said that he would continue the message for me, and that she had woken up from this dream to find [the applicant] in her bedroom."
The complainant, WB and LR then exchanged messages about the complainant telling her mother. The complainant said in a message: "I think I've also been putting off telling mum because pa [her grandfather] just got told he has cancer in like 11 areas But it[i] been a while since we got told so maybe tonight also be a good time to tell her since dad did something last night"
In the course of the messages, the complainant mentioned that she was in "shark week", which was a reference to her having her period. She explained in her evidence: "Well, I was kind of just saying, like, dad's not going to try and do much because I was on my periods. So, I assumed he wouldn't have been doing much to me."
The messages also referred to a "game plan", which the complainant explained was "a nicer version of saying that, just, the plan of what I wanted to do. If I wanted to tell the police. If I wanted to tell my mum". She said that, at that time, her mother was working in a nursing home and would be home in the afternoon. The complainant's mother confirmed that she worked in an "aged care facility" as a "support officer".
LR's attitude was as follows: "Well, I was very clear that I thought [the complainant] needed to speak to her mum; that she needed to tell [her mother] what was going on because she had said that [her mother] was not aware, so I keep telling her that she did need to speak to [her mother], and I was asking her, 'Did you want to come and stay with me at any time?', if she didn't feel safe at home. … [The complainant] had made it clear that she was quite nervous to tell her [mother], and she wasn't sure if she felt brave enough to."
WB's recollection at this time was: "[The complainant] wanted to ensure before the authorities [k]new, because she wanted to contact the authorities, that it was her, [the complainant], telling her mum … why the authorities were going to come to the house."
Later in the morning, in a message to WB, the complainant reported that she "woke up to dad in [her] room playing with [P]eanut [the family dog]". She messaged WB that the applicant's hand "got pretty far up [her thigh] but it didn't get that close".
The complainant, later in the morning of 20 July 2020, texted WB: "He had his hand on my leg and it kept getting further I was just trying to show him my island on animal crossing"
In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that Animal Crossing was "a game on [her] Nintendo Switch." The following exchange ensued: "Q. Why were you trying to show him your Nintendo Switch the next day if you'd just done these terrible things to you? A. Because I was kind of just used to everything happening."

[18]

The complainant's complaint to her mother on 20 July 2020

When the complainant's mother came home from work at the nursing home on the afternoon of 20 July 2020, the applicant was at work and the complainant and her mother were together in the lounge room. The complainant gave the following evidence as to what occurred: "I said - the first words I said was I know this is, like, something like, I know this isn't something you want to hear, but dad had been sexually touching me for a really long time. And I don't want to go to the police yet because I'm not ready, and I've told [WB] and [LR]. … [The complainant's mother] started bursting into tears, and she felt very sick and started to vomit. So, I went to go and - go and grab my grandma who was next door in, like, her granny flat. … My grandma had come in. Well, I had said to her, saying, mum needs you because she's feeling very unwell and is feeling very overwhelmed …."
The complainant said something further, which resulted in a successful application by Ms Hogan, who appeared on behalf of the applicant at trial and in this Court, for the jury to be discharged. When a new jury was empanelled, an agreed edited version of the complainant's evidence from the first trial (which had been recorded) was replayed to the jury. There was no challenge in this Court to this course being adopted.
WB gave evidence that on 20 July 2020 he and the complainant were on a voice chat and the complainant had put her phone "near where she was talking, or it was in her pocket", which meant that WB could hear the complainant, her mother and her grandmother. He recalled that he was on the voice chat for "20 to 30 minutes" and that he heard the complainant asking her mother to sit down because she was going to tell her something important and he also heard her tell her mother that "there'd been sexual abuse from her father". LR was also on the group chat, although not from the beginning. When she came onto the chat, LR "could hear that everyone was quite upset when she said that [the applicant] had been called, and he was coming home.".
LR's evidence about what she could hear from the chat was: "…[The complainant], for the most part, stayed in her room after she had told her mum, so I couldn't hear too much of [the complainant's mother] was saying, but I could hear that - that she was crying, and I could hear that she was upset, but I can't really remember hearing anything really that [the complainant's mother] had said, but I did hear [the complainant] say that [the applicant] had arrived home. I could hear him saying, '[The complainant], come out and talk to us. Why are you doing this? I'd rather kill myself than do anything like that.' [The applicant] [k]ept saying, 'Oh my God. Oh my God. It's not true', and then, when she did come out of her room, I did hear him ask her, 'Are you making this up because we wouldn't let you go to [LR's] this weekend?'"
LR explained that the last question related to the complainant's parents saying that she could not stay with LR again this weekend because she had stayed over the previous weekend.
The complainant's mother's evidence was as follows: "I'd worked that day, then I came home, we had dinner together, and then I was in the lounge room. I[']d been speaking to mum as well, how they'd sort of been, and then [the complainant] said, 'Mum, I need to tell you something', and I said, 'Well, come on out here', because she was in the bedroom. I said, 'Well, come out here and tell me.' She goes, 'No, you have to come in here', and I said, 'I'm really tired, you know, I've been working all day and I just got settled in the chair.' She goes, 'No, you have to come in the bedroom. I have to tell you something.' I said, 'All right, okay. I'm coming', and then I sat on the bed. … [The complainant] said, 'I have to tell you something', and she looked … funny. I said, 'No, I hope you're not pregnant.' … She just was quiet. She's normally bubbly and - so, you know, sort of person, and she was just really quiet, and she said - and she goes, 'No, mummy. I have to tell you something serious.' I said, 'All right, okay. What?', and that's when she started to say. … She said, 'Mummy, I have to tell you something. [WB] and [LR] already know what I'm going to tell you.' She said, 'Daddy's been touching me inappropriately', and I was like what, what, what, what, and she said, 'He's been doing it for a while.' … She said … 'Sometimes when he massaged my legs he would - he would touch me.' … She … pointed to her vagina. … She said the night before he even - 'He was touching himself and he tried to move my hand to make me touch it' … I was just very upset and crying, very emotional. I didn't know what - what was sort of going on … [The complainant] had gone in and got my mum from next door …"
As a result of this disclosure, the complainant's mother rang the applicant's brother, MM, and said, "[The complainant's] just said that [the applicant's] been doing all this stuff to her and I don't know what to do. I'm just - can you come over." MM and his wife LM came over.
The complainant's mother described the complainant's demeanour in the following exchange: "Q. … Did she seem unconcerned to you, unfazed? A. Yeah, she was just - even when she told me what was happening - it was just like a blank look on her face and she was just like wandering around as if nothing happened."

[19]

The family conference

When they arrived, the complainant stayed in her bedroom and the complainant's mother, the complainant's maternal grandmother, MM and LM sat around the kitchen table. The complainant's mother rang the applicant, who was at work on the afternoon shift. Her evidence was: "I said um 'You need to come home' and he says, 'Is everything all right' and I said, 'Nah, you just need to come home'. And he said, 'Okay, well, I'll come - I'll come right now'."
The complainant recalled that before the applicant came home from work, the following members of the complainant's family were present: the complainant, her mother, MM and LM, as well as her maternal grandparents and possibly also the complainant's brother. The complainant said in cross-examination that when MM and LM arrived, she was "shocked". She agreed that they all sat around the dining room table and asked her what had happened. She did not recall what she had told them and said that she went into her bedroom, closed the door and texted WB and LR.
While the complainant's mother was waiting for the applicant to come home, she had further discussions with the complainant. She said in evidence: "I … asked her some questions. Sort of said, 'Well, was daddy just touching you' and she said, 'Yes'. I said, 'Did he - did you have sex or did you - did he put his penis in your vagina' and she says, 'No mummy, no. He just - just touchings'."
The complainant's mother recalled that the applicant got home about half an hour after she called him. She said in evidence: "When he come home, he's like, 'What's going on, what's happened'. Because at that time his - my father and his father were ill. He thought something had happened to him and he's like, 'What's going on - are they all right' and I said, 'Yeah, it's - you better sit down, it's serious'. I said, '[The complainant] said that you've been touching her inappropriately'. And he was like, 'What are you guys saying, is this a joke'. I said, 'No, no. She's just told us'. And he got up and he went to the bathroom and he was sick. And then he came back and he's like, 'No, no, no - I wouldn't done anything'. I said, 'Well she said you have and you've been doing it for a long time, even last night. She said that you'd done something to her". And he was like, 'No way, no way'. And I said, 'Well I have to ring the police'."
The complainant heard the applicant outside her bedroom door "begging [her] to come outside and explain [herself]". She also heard him denying her allegations.
Before phoning the police, the complainant's mother spoke to the complainant. Her mother's evidence was: "I said to her, 'I've gotta call the police' and she says, 'No mummy, you don't have to call the police. I just want daddy to go away from me'. … I sort of just said, 'Well, you know, I hope you're telling the truth because the police - the police are coming and you have to tell them stuff as well'. … She said, 'Yes mummy. Yes mummy, daddy did those things'."

[27]

Tendency evidence

The Crown called JL, whose mother, EM, is the cousin of the complainant's mother. When JL was growing up she spent time with the applicant on two occasions, the first when she was "probably around 10" and the second when she was "between 11 and 12". On the first occasion, they had a family day out at (Australia's) Wonderland in Western Sydney. On the second occasion, in December 1996 (or possibly December 1997), JL and her family were visiting family in the Rooty Hill/Mount Druitt area and the applicant and his wife offered to take JL and her brother (who was a year older than her) "for a night to give [their] mum a break".
The applicant took JL and her brother to a soccer game and then took them back to the applicant's home. JL played in the backyard with her brother and the applicant's two dogs, "then had dinner [and] went to bed". JL was sleeping in the spare room at the front of the house and her brother was sleeping in the lounge room. JL said: "My next memory was waking up in the morning and realising that [the applicant] was actually in bed with me. … I was laying [sic] on my side, and he was … behind me, and, like, spooning. He had his hands actually up in inside my nightie, and he was cradling my breasts. … I could feel that he was aroused, and he was pressing into - into my back side. … His penis was erect and pressing on my back. … I tried to wriggle away, and pulled me back with his hands, and he just whispered into my ears. He said, 'Shh. It's okay. I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm just cuddling you because I love you so much.'"
JL did not recall what happened after that in "that room". Her next memory was being in the lounge room with her brother and the applicant. She recalled: "[The applicant] had some rice pudding that his mother had made for him, and he said it was favourite, but it was the last bowl, and he said, 'I'll share it with you, but you need to promise me that - that you won't tell your mum what happened, and what happens in this house stays in this house'."
Later they went to pick up another relative and went back to where JL and her brother had been staying. JL said that when they returned there: "… we were sitting all in the lounge room together, just sort of chatting about our evening, and [the applicant] sat up on the couch next to me, and he just whispered again to me: 'Remember what happens at my house stays at my house'."
JL said that although she thought about telling someone what had happened she did not tell anyone. She explained: "I guess I was scared at age 11 maybe what [the applicant] would [do], and maybe that no-one would believe that that had happened, and I also didn't want to ruin my mum's holiday."
JL said that she had not seen the applicant for at least five years.
In cross-examination, JL agreed that she was 37 years old at the time of giving evidence and that she was only 11 years old when the applicant had sexually touched her, which meant that she had said nothing for "some 25 odd years". She was cross-examined as follows: "Q. But you felt that you wanted to help [the complainant] out. A. I felt that what happened to me would be relevant. Q. So it would be correct to say that you wanted to help [the complainant] out because you thought it was relevant. A. Yes."
The complainant denied ever asking JL "to help [her] out in this matter".

[30]

The defence case

The applicant called two witnesses in his case: MM and LM. MM said that on the evening of 20 July 2020, the complainant's mother phoned and asked him and LM to come over. When they arrived, the complainant's mother was at the dining room table, crying, and her own mother was consoling her. The complainant was in the kitchen, looking for something to eat. According to MM, the complainant "wasn't upset … wasn't distressed … wasn't crying, even though her mother was at the table crying". When MM and LM asked the complainant's mother what was going on she said that the applicant had been "touching" the complainant. MM turned to the complainant and asked her whether it was true and she said, "yep". MM said that she appeared "normal", [j]ust a happy child … just looking through the fridge". MM said: "We tried to talk to [the complainant]. We asked her to come to the table, and she did, and she was just on her phone, so she was just looking down like this on her phone, and she was [not] interested in anything we were saying. … It looked like she was texting. [LM], I and [the complainant's mother] were trying to get information out of her, and she just wasn't interested in talking to us. She actually got up and left and went to her room."
MM and LM went into the complainant's room. They convinced her to get off her phone and talk to them and "she said that [the applicant] had been touching her". MM's evidence was: "She - she actually said to me that he put it here, and she pointed to her mouth. … Then, she said that he'd also put his hand down there, and she pointed to her vagina. … She seemed normal. She had - there was no expression on her face. … I actually said to [the complainant], 'Was there any intercourse?', and [the complainant] said, 'No, he tried, but it didn't go in.' … I said to her, 'When was the last time this happened', and she said it was Sunday. … She said there was oral sex."
According to MM: "So, we've asked [the complainant] to come back out to the dining table and talk to [her mother], myself, … and [LM], and she did eventually come out, and again, we weren't getting much out of her, but when she sat at the table, she was again texting on the phone. Again, wasn't interested in talking to us. She'd shrug her shoulders if we'd ask something."
When asked about the complainant's demeanour, MM said: "No, it was more just texting. But she wasn't crying or upset. That's what concerned me the most."
According to MM, when the applicant came home, the complainant went to her bedroom and closed the door as he entered. MM said: "I asked [the applicant] to sit down at the table, that we had something to talk about, and he did, and I said to him that [the complainant] has made allegations against him, and he denied it straight away. He said, 'I would never touch [the complainant]'. … [The applicant] just looked shattered. He wasn't the [applicant] we knew. He was - he was mortified just to hear something like that. … [The applicant] … pleaded with [the complainant] to come out, but she wouldn't answer us. … [The applicant] was saying, '[The complainant], please come out.' … She was in her room for quite a long time. She just didn't come out. She wouldn't answer. Eventually she did come out, and [the applicant] said to her, 'Please, [the complainant], tell the truth", and [the complainant] looked at him and said, 'You know what you did', and [the applicant] said, '[The complainant], tell the truth', and just then, the police turned up. … [LM] had actually suggested that the police should be called. [The applicant] said no, he would call them. He said he has nothing to hide, and [the complainant's mother] turned around and said, 'No, I'll call them.'"
MM said that he had been contacted by Detective Hedayat but that he had said that he did not want to make a statement.
In cross-examination, MM agreed that on the evening of 20 July 2020, the complainant "wasn't happy as such".
LM recalled being called downstairs by MM to say that the complainant's mother had called and wanted them to come over. LM gave evidence that when they arrived: "I asked [the complainant's mother] what was wrong, and she said [the complainant] had said that [the applicant] had been touching her, and [the complainant] was in the kitchen at the time, looking through the cupboards and the fridge, and [MM] said to her, 'Is this true?', and she said, 'Yes, it is.' Well, she said, 'yes', and nodded."
When LM was asked how the complainant seemed to her at that time, she said, "[n]o emotions". LM said that while they were around the dining room table: "We were trying to [talk to her, but [the complainant] was texting, and I said to her, 'Who are you texting?', and she said, '[WB] and [LR]'. I said, 'Well, you need to put the phone down and concentrate on what we're saying', and then she - she went to her bedroom."
In cross-examination, LM denied that the complainant appeared to be "emotionally closed" although she agreed that the complainant did not appear to want to talk to her or MM about what the applicant had done to her.
When asked about the complainant's demeanour, LM said, "[s]he had no emotions". LM also said: "So then [the complainant] come out to the table, and we - [MM] and I asked her what's happened, and she said, 'He made me put my mouth down there, and he put his tongue down there.'"
LM said of what occurred when the applicant came home: "When he come inside, [the complainant] ran to her bedroom and shut the door. Once he come inside, [MM] said to him, 'You need to sit down', and then said to him, 'There's been some allegations. [The complainant's] made some allegations', and … I don't recall what [MM] said to him, and then he said, 'No way. I would never do that.' [The applicant seemed] [s]hocked. … we were there for like a couple of seconds, and then he held his stomach and said, 'I'm going to be sick', and ran to the bathroom. … Once he'd come out, we were asking [the complainant] to come out of the bedroom and come and talk to us, you know, and she would not come out. …[The applicant was saying] '[The complainant], please, come out and tell us what's happened.' [but] she did not speak."
LM also recalled that, when the complainant came out of her room, she sat at the dining room table next to LM and the applicant asked, "What's happened?" and the complainant said, "You know what you've done.".
LM agreed that she and MM had been contacted by Detective Hedayat but they had both refused to give statements.

[31]

The prosecutor's closing address

Of present relevance, the prosecutor said of count 5 in the closing address: "Turning to count 5, members of the jury, at the time of this offence, [the complainant] gave evidence that she was 13 or 14 years of age, importantly, and this is important evidence for an issue that you have to consider in relation to count 5. … In order to prove count 5, the Crown needs to prove that the accused had sexual intercourse with [the complainant], that the complainant was over the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, and that the complainant was under the authority of the accused. Based on the evidence of [the complainant], members of the jury, the Crown would say that you would find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with [the complainant] and also find that she was under the authority of the accused, but the Crown says that because of [the complainant's] evidence that she was 13 or 14 years of age, you couldn't be satisfied that she was under the age of 14 at the time of count 5. Members of the jury, there's a statutory alternative available for this offence, which is an offence of sexual intercourse with a person over the age of 10 and under the age of 16 years under authority. The Crown submits to you, frankly, that you might have a reasonable doubt about whether [the complainant] was under the age of 14 at the time of this alleged offence because her evidence couldn't be sure whether she was 13 or 14. But you'd still be satisfied that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, and you'd still be satisfied that she was under the authority of the accused, and I invite you, respectfully, members of the jury, to find the accused guilty of the statutory alternative charge in relation to count 5 that you'll receive some directions about form his Honour."
The prosecutor concluded his address with reference to Exhibits 3 and 4 (the photographs of the complainant and the applicant together and text messages between them) which were tendered on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate that the complainant loved the applicant. He said of these exhibits: "I'm going to finish on a particular topic. You've got the messages between the accused and [the complainant] in exhibit 3, and you've got the family pictures in exhibit 4. So, exhibit 3 is 93 pages of text messages between the accused and [the complainant]. You've seen messages where [the complainant] says that she loves the accused, of course requests for the accused to bring her back food at time and drinks, and the family photos of [the complainant] growing up, in which she is with the accused, sometimes taking selfies with him, sometimes very close to him. It might be submitted to you that the evidence in exhibit 3 and exhibit 4 paint a portrait of a normal family relationship, a normal father and daughter relationship in which there was nothing sinister going on under the surface. I submit to you that your experience of the world will tell you that human relationships are complex, and you can have mixed feelings about a person. Simply because the accused did sexual things to [the complainant] over the course of her life doesn't mean that she wouldn't have feelings of love or affection for him. The accused was a person who was deeply enmeshed in her lif[e], and in this respect, it is, you might find, completely unsurprising that evidence, such as is in exhibit 3 and exhibit 4, exists. This is where your experience of life and human affairs comes in. … I'm going to conclude my address with something that [the complainant] told you in evidence: 'Q. Even though you say the accused has done these terrible things to you over the years, how did you feel about him? A. I most of all felt confused and angry. But in a sense, it was still he's my father.' [The complainant] went on to say, 'I loved him as my dad, but I didn't love him for what he did.' Members of the jury, I've now concluded my address to you."

[32]

The defence closing

Ms Hogan raised, in closing, a number of matters which she submitted would cause the jury to have a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt. I will summarise these as she made similar submissions in this Court as to why the verdicts were unreasonable.
First, she submitted that the way in which the complainant gave evidence included frequent pauses, sometimes for a considerable period of time, and vague and imprecise evidence together with concessions that she could not remember particular things. She instanced occasions when the complainant had asked for a break at a time when Ms Hogan had indicated that she was about to ask her about another count. She submitted that the complainant missed count 7 and proceeded to give evidence about count 8. She also submitted that the complainant had admitted to looking at one of her police statements during a lunch break but could not give an "adequate explanation" for having done so. Following objection from the prosecutor, the trial judge told the jury in the course of the summing up that there was no basis for inferring that the complainant was aware that it was improper for her to look at a witness statement during the break.
Secondly, Ms Hogan went through each count and made the following points.
In respect of count 1, Ms Hogan referred to the complainant's evidence in chief that she did not wear underwear under her pyjamas but later conceded that she had said that she had. She also relied on the circumstance that, notwithstanding what the complainant said about count 1, the complainant had still kept returning to her parents' bed, although she was not welcome there. Ms Hogan also relied on the complainant's mother's evidence that she was a light sleeper compared with the applicant. Ms Hogan submitted that these matters made the complainant's evidence of count 1 "implausible".
In respect of count 2, Ms Hogan submitted that the differential in height between the applicant and the complainant at the time of count 2 made it "implausible that she could have felt the accused's erect penis pressing into her tailbone".
As to count 3, Ms Hogan submitted that the complainant's evidence as to this count suffered from the same deficiencies as with count 1. She said that the complainant's evidence that the applicant made her masturbate his penis for a considerable time in bed when her mother, who was a light sleeper, was in the vicinity was "implausible".
As to count 4, Ms Hogan referred to the complainant's evidence that it was after the commission of this offence that she started to self-harm. Ms Hogan submitted: "Now, the complainant went to headspace from 28 January 2016 to 8 August 2016. Count 4 is said to have occurred between 21 July 2014 and 31 December 2014. It's beggars' belief that anyone, let alone the accused, would notice something like this when engaging in a criminal act, yet would still go on to not only mention the cuts to his wife but seek help for the complainant. After all, if he were the cause of the cuts and he had noticed them in that fashion, one might think it to be an extreme risk to take the complainant to a counsellor given that there would be every likelihood she would make a complaint."
Ms Hogan submitted that it was significant that the complainant did not mention the offending conduct to Headspace or to the Daily Telegraph reporter who had written the article about her experience with Headspace.
As to count 5, Ms Hogan submitted that the complainant's uncertainty about her age ("13 or 14") ought lead the jury to have a doubt not only about count 5 but also about the statutory alternative.
As to count 6, Ms Hogan referred to the complainant's evidence about the degree of penetration (which has been set out above) and said that the jury would not be satisfied that sexual intercourse had occurred.
She submitted, in respect of counts 6, 7 and 8: "More significantly, the complainant said her door was open when this occurred and the lounge room illuminated her room a little, the lounge room lights. That is simply implausible, to be doing those things to the complainant with the bedroom door open, with a view of her bed from the living and dining areas of the house. Again, even if you thought this incident occurred, you certainly could not be satisfied that what occurred constituted sexual intercourse."
As to count 9, Ms Hogan submitted that the complainant's evidence was "particularly vague".
As to counts 10 and 11, Ms Hogan said that the complainant's failure to give evidence that the accused ejaculated during this count was inconsistent with the Crown case that the semen on her bed frame came from the applicant ejaculating during this incident. Ms Hogan also submitted that the complainant was inconsistent in her assessment of how far the applicant's penis was from her face (first indicating 20cm and later agreeing that she had said 5-10cm in a statement). She submitted that if any of these estimates had been true, the applicant "would have ejaculated onto the complainant's face". She also relied on the fact that these events were alleged to have happened while the complainant's bedroom door was open and also referred to the complainant's evidence that he had masturbated with his left hand, although he was right-handed.
Ms Hogan further submitted: "You might think it a little bit strange, or indeed a very big coincidence, that these things happened just after she spoke to [WB]. Perhaps she was indeed imagining things. Another grandfather had cancer, which was held to be a trigger previously. How do we know all of these incidents are not akin to a dream or a nightmare, particularly given her suggestion that the nightmare on that night felt real? The complainant and even her mother told us that she would become ill during shark week or when she has her periods. But she denied having a conversation with her father to that effect on that evening. But [BM] told you that in the early hours of the morning, he heard the complainant and his father having a conversation. That a conversation occurred between them is entirely inconsistent with any offending having happened. She also said that the following morning, she was trying to show the accused something on her Nintendo Switch, on Animal Crossing. Again, that's entirely inconsistent with any offending having happened the night before."
Ms Hogan also submitted that it was significant that the complainant did not want the police to be called. Ms Hogan asked rhetorically, "if she was telling the truth, why didn't she want the police called?" Ms Hogan also relied heavily on MM and LM's descriptions of the complainant's demeanour when they arrived at the complainant's home on the evening of 20 July 2020. Ms Hogan submitted that "they were puzzled about the way in which the complainant presented herself having just disclosed such things".
Ms Hogan submitted that it was significant that the complainant had not disclosed all of the alleged offending conduct at once and that it had come out at different times.
As to the DNA evidence, Ms Hogan submitted that it was significant that the police had not taken a sample from BM, especially given there were instances when he slept in the complainant's bed when his fiancée stayed over. She also submitted that the semen on the blankets was equivocal as they were items which were moved around the house and were not permanently on the complainant's bed.
Ms Hogan referred to the exhibits which contained "expressions of love" between the applicant and the complainant and said that "[t]hese exhibits would give you [the jury] considerable reason to pause and really consider the complainant's version of events". Ms Hogan also relied on the complainant's evidence that she went into her parents' bed and accepted (and sometimes requested) foot massages from the applicant and asked, rhetorically, why the complainant would do these things if her allegations were true.
Ms Hogan submitted that the complainant had a motive to lie about the applicant because she wanted to move in with WB and that the jury ought reject the Crown's submission that that was just a plan for the future.
As to JL's tendency evidence, Ms Hogan submitted that the jury would not accept JL as a witness of truth because she "wasn't forthcoming about her relationship with [MB] [who] did not like the accused". Ms Hogan also relied on the evidence that "[n]o-one has ever noticed any inappropriate behaviour by the accused towards any child".
Ms Hogan relied on LM and MM's descriptions of the applicant's demeanour when he became aware of the allegations as well as his demeanour as depicted on the ERISP (which she submitted was "visibly shocked and horrified throughout").
Ms Hogan also submitted: "But besides his demeanour, there are a number of things the accused readily told police that you would not expect him to have volunteered had he been sexually abusing his daughter. At the scene, he said he did massage her feet. He volunteered that to police. In his interview, he spoke about having a shower with her, massaging her feet many times, how she would frequently go into their bed, and he even mentioned what you've heard me call 'the penis grabbing incident' that occurred in the bed when she was a child, that is, when he awoke to find her touching his penis. If he had done these things to the complainant, whilst massaging her feet, whilst having a shower with her, and whilst she was in their bed, you might wonder why on Earth he would readily say that he did these tasks for her. The accused did these things to care for his daughter. He didn't sexually abuse her."

[33]

The summing up

Although the contents of the summing up are not generally germane to an appeal where the sole ground is unreasonable verdict (as the assessment of the evidence is for this Court to undertake in accordance with M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63), there are aspects of the summing up which are relevant to the applicant's submissions concerning the verdict of guilty in respect of count 5. The other directions set out below are also included in order to give context to the applicant's submissions in this Court.
Of relevance to the appeal the trial judge said of count 5 in the summing up: "Members of the jury, the complainant said that she was 13 or 14 when this sexual activity occurred. In light of that evidence from the complainant about her age when the incident, the subject of count five, occurred, the Crown accepted that you might harbour a doubt about an essential element of the offence being that she was aged between 10 and 14 being satisfied. If you agree with this, then that element is not satisfied and you must acquit the accused, so the Crown submitted to you that, if that was the only reason for you to find reasonable doubt about charge five, then the Crown relied upon an alternative charge. The elements of that alternative charge are 1: that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant, 2: the complainant was above the age of 14 but under the age of 16, and 3: the complainant was under the accused's authority. If, for example, you were to find that the complainant was 14, which was one of the alternative ages that she gave in relation to this incident, then this would satisfy the second essential element of the offence."
Of count 6, the trial judge gave the jury the following direction which is not the subject of challenge: "Members of the jury, the accused doesn't actually have to penetrate her vagina. As a matter of law, the actual legal test is penetration of the female genitalia. Now, there are of course women on your jury. I'm not about to give you an anatomy lesson, except to say obviously that the female genitalia involves the outer aspects of the female vaginal cavity. The question is not whether he penetrated, ultimately, the vaginal cavity itself; it's whether he penetrated the female genitalia to any extent by any part of his body."
Of the timing of the complaints made by the complainant, the trial judge directed the jury: "… the absence of prior complaint to other persons is a matter that you may take into account in assessing the credibility of the complainant's evidence as to what she said the accused did."
As to the alternative charges, the trial judge directed the jury: "If you find that the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements of the alternative charge, after having acquitted the accused on those primary charges, then you may find the accused guilty of the alternative charges. However, I direct you that you should not regard the availability of an alternative charge as an invitation to compromise your verdict on the primary charge. For example, it would be quite wrong for you to find the accused guilty of the alternative charge, simply because some of you found that the accused was guilty of the primary charge, but others were not so satisfied and would enter a verdict of not guilty on that primary charge. It would be unfair and contrary to your oaths or affirmations to decide to break the deadlock by convicting the accused on the alternative count."
On 27 March 2023, the trial judge concluded the summing up and sent the jury out to deliberate at 10.28am. The jury returned guilty verdicts in respect of all counts at 2.29pm that day.

[34]

The applicable principles

In M v The Queen, the High Court said that, when addressing an unreasonable verdict ground, the question for this Court is "whether it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty" (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ at 493). This question "is one of fact which the court must decide by making its own independent assessment of the evidence" (at 492). The court may conclude that no miscarriage of justice has occurred if "a jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving a doubt experienced by [the appellate court]" (at 494).
The plurality said further at 494: "[w]here the evidence lacks credibility for reasons which are not explained by the manner in which it was given, a reasonable doubt experienced by the court is a doubt which a reasonable jury ought to have experienced. If the evidence, upon the record itself, contains discrepancies, displays inadequacies, is tainted or otherwise lacks probative force in such a way as to lead the court of criminal appeal to conclude that, even making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted, then the court is bound to act and to set aside a verdict based upon that evidence." (Footnotes omitted.)
Even if a complainant's evidence is not corroborated, a verdict of guilty is not unreasonable on only that basis: Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 (Pell) at [53] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ). The Court in Pell said at [39]: "The function of the court of criminal appeal in determining a ground that contends that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, in a case such as the present, proceeds upon the assumption that the evidence of the complainant was assessed by the jury to be credible and reliable. The court examines the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment - either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in light of other evidence - the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt." (Footnotes omitted.)
The primary function of determining guilt or innocence has been given to the jury as the tribunal of fact: The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 at [65] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ).
While the Court is entitled to disbelieve a witness whose evidence a jury must have accepted, at least in so far as it established the elements of an offence in respect of which a guilty verdict has been returned, the extent to which it may do so is constrained. In Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8, this Court (Macfarlan JA, Brereton JA and Beech-Jones CJ at CL agreeing) said at [29]: "… it should be emphasised that, in general, matters of credibility are for the jury to determine and only in an unusual case will it be able to be said that the complainant's credibility has been so damaged that it was not open to the jury to accept his or her evidence."

[35]

The challenges to the verdicts

In this Court, Ms Hogan largely relied on the submissions which she had made to the jury and which were, inferentially, largely rejected by them.
Ms Hogan's submissions were based on the following propositions, each of which was, in my view, flawed and which the jury was entitled to reject: 1. the complainant's credibility was impugned by: 1. lack of contemporaneous complaint; 2. lack of complaint to medical practitioners notwithstanding the many opportunities she had to do so, having regard to her various medical conditions; 3. uncertainty about detail, including her age at the time of different offending; 4. the fact that the complainant only complained when she wanted to move out of home to live with WB or LR, which gave her a motive to lie; and 5. the numerous texts and photographs which indicated that she loved the applicant (including by taking "selfies" with him); 1. if the complaints were true, the complainant would not have returned to her parents' bed or permitted or sought a foot massage from the applicant because of the risk of recurrence of the offending conduct; 2. it was implausible that the applicant would offend in a bed where his wife, who was a light sleeper, was sleeping, or in the complainant's bedroom with the door open, because of the risk of detection; 3. if the applicant had committed the offences, he would never have drawn attention to his seeing the cuts on her thighs, much less taken her to see a specialist on her own because of the risk that she would disclose the offending conduct to the specialist; 4. BM's evidence that he heard the complainant and the applicant speaking at about 1am on 20 July 2020 (after the offending alleged in counts 10 and 11) was inconsistent with the offences having occurred because, if they had occurred, the complainant would not have spoken to her father afterwards; and 5. the applicant did not have a tendency to be sexually attracted to girls of the complainant's age because the only evidence of similar conduct was given by JL, who had a motive to lie because she was close to MB, who did not like the applicant.

[36]

Lack of contemporaneous complaint despite ample opportunity

It can reasonably be expected that people who are empowered and are accustomed to getting what they want will, when they are aggrieved or dissatisfied, complain about the wrongdoer (even those in positions of authority), or, if they consider that the matter can best be remedied "in-house" will warn the wrongdoer that any recurrence will lead to a complaint being made.
In the recent past, the common law, as confirmed by Barwick CJ in Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460 at 465; [1973] HCA 30, used to require juries to be directed as follows: "It would no doubt be proper for a trial judge to instruct a jury that in evaluating the evidence of a woman who claims to have been the victim of a rape, and in determining whether to believe her, they could take into account that she had made no complaint at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Indeed, in my opinion, such a direction would not only be proper but, depending of course on the particular circumstances of the case, ought as a general rule to be given."
Such a direction was apparently based on an assumption (which has proved to be untrue, particularly in the case of child victims of sexual offending) that if a complaint is true, it is made at the earliest possible opportunity. Subsequently, Parliament intervened to override the assumption, which was accepted to be wrong. As Spigelman CJ said in R v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362 at 366-367: "There is no doubt that the criminal courts do have a body of experience that is not shared by the ordinary juror. For many years it was thought that practice with respect to warnings about complainants in sexual assault cases reflected such superior experience. It is now clear that the practice in fact reflected the limitations on the experience of judges, who were almost invariably male. … it was established that as a general rule a court should direct a jury that a complainant's failure to complain at the earliest reasonable opportunity was something they could take into account in determining whether to believe her: Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460 at 465. … It appears to me that a Kilby direction was originally based on the assumption that in the normal course of events, a victim of a sexual assault will complain at the first opportunity. Section 405B [now s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)] requires an express direction that that assumption is wrong."
The old, and discredited, assumption about delay has no place in the context of alleged sexual offending. It is particularly inapposite when the victims of sexual offending are children. In that context, delay in complaint or provision of further detail after an initial disclosure are common features because of the attendant trauma caused by such abuse and the shame felt by victims: see the discussion in Decision Restricted [2024] NSWCCA 81 at [92] (Davies J, Button and Sweeney JJ agreeing).
In the present case, it was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence about why she did not tell her mother earlier than 20 July 2020. The complainant gave the following reasons, each and all of which were, in my view, capable of being accepted by the jury. First, she was scared that she would not be believed and therefore fearful of what the applicant would do and the repercussions for her; second, she loved her parents and relied on them for emotional, practical and financial support; third, she was worried about losing her home; fourth, she had no viable alternative living arrangement (the best that WB's parents could offer was to call for an Uber and take her to a hotel, for which she would have had no means of paying); and, fifth, she was worried about the police being involved because all that she wanted was for the conduct to stop and she appreciated that the consequences would escalate if the police became involved. The jury was entitled to take into account that subsequent events proved that the complainant's fears were well-founded: she was not believed by at least some members of the family (MM and LM); about a month after she told her mother, she had to move away to live with LR for four months before moving in with MB; and the police involvement meant her entire family structure was disrupted. In other words, her disclosure to her mother had the very effect that the complainant feared: she lost her home.
It was open to the jury to consider that the reasons why the complainant told her mother on 20 July 2020 included the following. First, when the complainant had observed WB's sister at her ninth birthday party, she had appreciated how young and vulnerable she herself must have been when the applicant first sexually assaulted her and that she had been deprived of her innocence from an early age. Second, her disclosures to WB and LR had elicited from them significant sympathy and support for telling her mother. Third, she can be taken to have appreciated, by 19 July 2020, that, if she did not say anything to her mother, the applicant's conduct would continue and she wanted it to stop.
Given that the reason which the complainant gave for telling her mother was, as referred to above, to stop the applicant's conduct, it was open to the jury to consider that the complainant would have been loath to tell a professional such as a doctor or psychologist because such a disclosure would have taken the matter outside the confines of the family with the inevitable result that she would lose any control over the consequences of her disclosure.

[39]

Alleged inconsistency between the sexual offending and the love which the complainant felt for her father

Once again, the assumption behind Ms Hogan's submission is, at least dubious, if not fallacious and can be expressed as follows: if someone has wronged you, you will cease having anything to do with them and if you continue to engage with them in the same way as you did prior to the wrongdoing, it is an indication that the wrongdoing did not happen. While the assumption may have some operation in other contexts (arms-length business dealings being a typical one), it would appear to be completely inapposite in a case such as the present.
When the alleged offending first occurred, the complainant was 9 years old. She had a congenital heart condition which required medical treatment including four operations (the last of which was carried out when she was 12) and was bullied at school as a consequence. She lived with her parents and her older brother. Her reaction to the first instance of offending was to feel "a bit uncomfortable" and she did not mention it to the applicant or anyone else the following morning or until the disclosures made years later in 2020 when she was 18 years old. The pattern of the alleged offending, as evident from the time sequence of the different counts, indicates a level of grooming, in that the first three counts involved indecent assault rather than aggravated sexual intercourse. It was open to the jury to consider that the complainant might have been loath to complain about later events when she had not complained about earlier events.
The evidence disclosed that the complainant's relationship with her father, apart from the sexual offending, was close and loving. It was open to the jury to consider that the complainant's distress about the sexual offending in this context was exacerbated by the fact that she did love him (and was utterly dependent on her parents, including financially and because of her health condition). Indeed, it was open to the jury to regard the text she sent to WB on 3 July 2020, "[t]he thing I hate most about it, is the fact that he was always so gentle about it", as a reflection of her distress at the conflict between her love for her father (and his for her) and the offending conduct.
Ms Hogan acknowledged in submissions that she, as an experienced practitioner in the criminal law, accepted that it was possible for a victim of a sexual assault committed by a family member (typically a father, grandfather or uncle) to continue to love the family member, notwithstanding the sexual assaults perpetrated by him. However, she submitted that her knowledge derived from her experience in criminal trials with respect to child sexual offending and that the jury could not be expected to be aware of such matters in the absence of expert psychiatric or psychological evidence of which there was none as to that matter in the present case.
Leaving aside any prior experience which a juror or jurors may have had of intra-family sexual abuse, it was, in my view, open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence of her feelings: namely, that she loved her father but did not like what he had done to her. The resolution of this matter was, as with the other matters raised by Ms Hogan in this context, quintessentially a matter for the jury, which is regarded as a "microcosm of the community": MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 at [48] (McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ).

[41]

Alleged implausibility of commission of offences having regard to risk of detection

The location of the complainant's second bedroom centrally within the home and the fact that her door was open during the alleged offences committed while she was in that bedroom was relied on by Ms Hogan as indicating the "implausibility" of the offences having been committed in those circumstances, given the high risk of detection. However, the evidence revealed several instances where the applicant had a legitimate reason to be in the complainant's bedroom or the family bathroom or in the same bed as the complainant.
The matters which would explain his presence in her bedroom included the following: first, to help the complainant when she vomited, as she tended to do when she had her period, because the complainant's mother could not perform this task because of her own tendency to vomit in those circumstances; second, to remove her ear plugs when she fell asleep; third, to give her a foot massage; and, fourth, to pull up a blanket on her bed as she felt the cold. Further, the applicant was the only other family member who could help the complainant wash her hair as her brother was regarded as being of an age where it was inappropriate for him to be in the bathroom when the complainant was there and the complainant's mother's medical difficulties with her hands and arms meant that she was not capable of helping. Because the complainant sought refuge in her parents' bed, the applicant needed no excuse for her being there.
It was also open to the jury to regard the evidence that the complainant's mother was a light sleeper as no more than a subjective assessment which did not cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant regarding the counts concerning the applicant's conduct when she was in her parents' bed (counts 1 and 3) or make the conduct otherwise implausible.
It was also open to the jury to consider that the applicant was not deterred by the risk of detection (which he may have adjudged to be low given that he could have explained his presence by reference to the matters referred to above). The greatest risk of detection was that the complainant would tell her mother. It was open to the jury to consider that the applicant considered this risk to be low since he had been sexually offending against her for years and she had, to his knowledge until 20 July 2020, not told anyone.

[44]

The alleged implausibility of the complainant not appearing distressed in front of MM and LM on 20 July 2020

Ms Hogan submitted that the complainant's apparent failure to express emotions when MM and LM were present at the home on 20 July 2020 told against her credibility. This submission would appear to incorporate an assumption that if the complainant had been a victim of sexual offending, she would behave in a particular way (breaking down and crying or expressing the extreme emotions which adults would expect to see in those circumstances). In Maughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 51 at [2], R A Hulme J cautioned against: "… the futility of assessing the behaviour of sexual assault complainants by reference to stereotypical expectations. The criminal law has moved past the era in which this was often prominent in a defence to a sexual assault allegation."
Ms Hogan's submissions were redolent with references to stereotypical and discredited expectations. Her submission that it was implausible that the complainant would have been speaking to the applicant within earshot of BM's bedroom if the offending conduct had occurred earlier that evening and that her evidence was "inconsistent" with BM's evidence must be rejected. Given that the complainant had continued to live with her parents for years after the original offending conduct, it was open to the jury to consider that there was no such inconsistency.
The use of the word "implausible" in this context is fraught because it implies that there is a "usual" or "conventional" way in which humans behave in certain situations, including traumatic ones, and that any deviation from this supposed norm is an indication that the complainant is unreliable and lacking in credibility. While the concept of "objective probabilities" can be useful when assessing the consistency of a witness' version against known events, there is force in the observation that truth is stranger than fiction. Further, matters which may appear to some to be implausible (such as that a truthful complainant may take years to disclose a genuine complaint), may be explicable when viewed with greater knowledge of the consequences of trauma.
The jury's task was to decide the matter on the basis of all of the evidence. It was entitled to accept the complainant as a credible and reliable witness of the offences charged (with the exception of the complainant's age as alleged in count 5, which is separately addressed below).
Plainly, MM and LM expected that the complainant would engage with them when they visited her home on 20 July 2020. However, she did so only to a very limited extent and kept her phone on, with WB and LR listening in, throughout. The jury was entitled to consider that, while MM and LM may have seen the complainant's laconic responses and disinclination to engage, as an indication that she was not telling the truth or was being flippant, and that they may have seen the applicant's overt shock at the allegations and vociferous protestations of his innocence as supporting his position, the complainant's flat affect and lack of engagement was consistent with the truth of her complaints. The jury may have considered that these matters were a manifestation of the effort which it took for the complainant to make the disclosure which had the potential to (and did in fact) unleash all the consequences which had prevented her from saying anything to her mother for so long. It was also open to the jury to regard MM and LM's assessment of the dynamics as honest but mistaken.

[53]

Gilson

In Gilson, the appellant, Gilson, was charged in the alternative with the common law offences of stealing and receiving stolen goods in South Australia. The evidence was consistent with either charge. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied that Gilson was guilty of one or other of the offences, they were obliged to determine, on the balance of probabilities, which one of them he committed and convict him of that one. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of receiving. The appellant appealed on the ground that the direction was erroneous because of the reference to the balance of probabilities. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that although the direction was erroneous, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice as the offence of receiving was clearly the lesser offence.
In coming to this conclusion, the Court noted various solutions to the problem. One was that where a jury is unsure of the guilt of the accused on one or other of two alternative offences, the accused ought be acquitted of both: see R v Bruce [1988] VR 579 at 601. The Court also reviewed the legislative solutions (applicable in Queensland and Western Australia) which provided that where stealing and receiving property were charged in the alternative and the jury found specially that the accused either stole the property or received it knowing it to be stolen, but were unable to say which of those offences was committed, the accused is not entitled to be acquitted, but the court shall enter a conviction of the offence for which the lesser punishment is provided.
The Court in Gilson noted that there was no corresponding legislative provision in South Australia. The plurality (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ) said at 363: "It is clearly unsatisfactory to require a jury to acquit an accused entirely when they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of either theft or receiving, merely because, as a result of being required to apply the same standard of proof, they cannot determine which offence he committed. The law must surely be brought into disrepute if it is so bereft of answers that an accused who is clearly guilty of one offence or the other is allowed to escape conviction altogether."
The plurality held at 364, that, where there are alternative charges, the trial judge should direct the jury which of the offences they should regard as the less serious and the jury should be instructed that if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of one or other of the offences but are unable to say which, they should return a verdict of guilty of the less serious offence: see also Brennan J at 369 and Gaudron J at 370.
It was accepted that in the present case the trial judge did not direct the jury in accordance with Gilson, that is, the trial judge did not tell the jury that if they were satisfied that the applicant was guilty of either an offence under s 66C(2) or s 66C(4) but could not decide which, they ought return a verdict of guilty in respect of the less serious offence (s 66C(4)). Rather, the trial judge gave the direction set out above, which did not give the jury any guidance as to how they should return a verdict if there was no unanimity on the age of the complainant (by reference to the applicable charge). This omission may explain the verdict which was returned.
The correctness of Gilson has not been doubted. However, in R v Marijacevic (2001) 3 VR 611; [2001] VSCA 188, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that it did not apply to statutory offences in Victoria because of the particular statutory wording. I do not consider that this qualification to the application of Gilson affects the present case because the difference between the principal count 5 (s 66C(2)) and the statutory alternative (s 66C(4)) relates only to the age of the complainant and not to any other element of the offence. Further, the statutory alternative is expressly authorised by s 80AB(9).

[54]

JGW

In JGW, this Court addressed a similar issue to that which has arisen in the present case. The appellant, JGW, was, relevantly, convicted of a count 4 on indictment which charged attempted homosexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years contrary to s 78H of the Crimes Act. The complainant, NW, said that he was "about 10" when the offence occurred. Wood CJ at CL (Barr and G James JJ agreeing) said, at [84], that because the evidence left open the possibility that the offence was committed when the complainant was 10, the verdict was "unsafe and unsatisfactory" because the offence required proof beyond reasonable doubt that NW was under the age of 10 years.
His Honour continued: "85 However, since the jury were satisfied that the conduct charged did occur, the appellant would properly have been convicted of the alternative and lesser offence available under s 78K Crimes Act, ie homosexual intercourse with a male person aged ten years or over but less than eighteen years. A conviction for this alternative is permissible under S 78J Crimes Act 1900. Although raised peripherally in argument, and not subject to any considered submission, I am not persuaded by the proposition that where the jury are satisfied that the conduct charged did occur, but are left uncertain whether the complainant was aged under or over ten years, they must return a verdict of acquittal of any offence. 86 The age is a matter of aggravation, attracting additional consequences by way of penalty. Where the jury is in doubt only as to whether the complainant was of an age that would attract an aggravation of penalty, then I am of the view that they could convict of the lesser offence, i.e. without the factor of aggravation. 87 For these reasons, I would uphold the appeal against conviction in respect of count four, and substitute therefore a conviction for homosexual intercourse with a male aged between ten years and under eighteen years."
Although the question was not specifically addressed in JGW, it is necessarily implicit in the Court's reasons that it was not necessary for the Crown to prove that the victim was above the age of 10 years before a verdict of guilty could be returned for an offence under s 78K of the Crimes Act (as long as the Crown could prove that the victim was under the age of 18 years).
While Gilson was not referred to in JGW, the same approach was adopted in JGW. In JGW because the jury could not have convicted JGW of the more serious offence (s 78H), but its (unreasonable) verdict of guilty in respect of count 4 indicated that it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of all other elements of that offence, this Court could set aside the conviction of the s 78H offence and enter a conviction of the lesser offence: namely the offence contrary to s 78K which criminalised "homosexual intercourse with a male person of or above the age of 10 years, and under the age of 18 years". In JGW, this Court relied expressly on the provisions of s 78J(1) which provided: "(1) Where on the trial of a male person for having homosexual intercourse with a male person under the age of 10 years, the jury is satisfied that the secondmentioned person was of or above that age, but under the age of 18 years, and that the accused had homosexual intercourse with that person, it may acquit him of the offence charged and find him guilty of an offence under section 78K, and he shall be liable to punishment accordingly."
The Court in JGW held that a conviction for the alternative (lesser) offence was permissible under s 78J. The age of 10 years constituted the division between an offence under s 78H and an offence under s 78K. Because JGW is directly analogous to the present case and is, in my view, consistent with the approach in Gilson, this Court ought set aside the verdict in respect of count 5 and substitute a verdict in respect of the statutory alternative, being an offence contrary to s 66C(4), as authorised by s 80AB(9).
Although s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act empowers the Court, when it substitutes a verdict found by the jury for a verdict of another offence, to pass sentence in substitution for the sentence that was passed as is warranted, this Court does not have the requisite material before it to perform such a task. Further, it is desirable that the applicant and the Crown have the opportunity to have that task performed by the trial judge, or another judge of the District Court in order to preserve their rights of appeal to this Court. Accordingly, it is appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the District Court for sentencing under s 12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act: see the authorities referred to in Sivaraja v R; Sivathas v R [2017] NSWCCA 236 at [195] (Meagher JA, R A Hulme and Beech-Jones JJ).
Although s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act provides that the substitution of the verdict be done "instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal", I consider that the appeal ought be allowed, as it was in JGW (when s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act was in the same form), to indicate what has occurred.
I should add for completeness that I do not regard the unavailability of s 80AF as affecting my conclusion. The High Court held in Stephens that the provision was not, as a matter of construction, intended to apply after a trial has commenced.

[55]

Proposed orders

For the reasons given above, I propose the following orders: 1. Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal against the conviction in respect of count 5. 2. Set aside the conviction in respect of count 5 and, instead, convict the applicant of the statutory alternative to count 5 namely an offence contrary to s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the complainant was under the applicant's authority. 3. Otherwise dismiss the appeal. 4. Remit the matter to the District Court arraignment list at 9.30am on 16 August 2024 for the applicant to be sentenced in accordance with law.
DHANJI J: In this matter I have had the considerable benefit of reading the reasons of Adamson JA in draft. I agree with the orders proposed by her Honour and generally with her Honour's reasons. With respect to the verdicts on each of the counts other than count 5, I would add only the following. Various arguments were raised by the applicant as to why these verdicts were unreasonable. I largely agree with Adamson JA as to the weight to be given to these arguments. In a case such as the present, some aspects of the evidence may legitimately be argued to be implausible or to expose a question as to a complainant's credibility. Whether such an argument is effective will depend on all the circumstances of the case. That is, as the High Court said in Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 at [39], in a case such as this, this Court: "… proceeds upon the assumption that the evidence of the complainant was assessed by the jury to be credible and reliable. The court examines the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment - either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in light of other evidence - the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt."
Subject to what follows as to count 5, this was not a case where the matters raised by the applicant satisfy me that the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of the applicant's guilt.

[56]

Count 5

For the reasons given by Adamson JA, the verdict of guilty to count 5 was unreasonable. It was not open to the jury (in the sense that expression is used in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was under the age of 14 at the relevant time. An element of the offence against s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was not established. This then raises the conundrum of whether a verdict for the less serious offence against s 66C(4) can be substituted by this Court pursuant to s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). There are three preconditions to the operation of s 7(2): that the "appellant has been convicted of an offence"; that "on the indictment the jury could have found the appellant guilty of some other offence"; and that "on the finding of the jury it appears to the court that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved the appellant guilty of that other offence".
It is the last of the above preconditions that is in issue in the present matter. The question is, must the jury have been satisfied the applicant committed an offence against s 66C(4) on the facts found by them? The jury, in finding the applicant guilty of the s 66C(2) offence, were satisfied of each of the elements of that offence, including that the complainant was under the age of 14. Could it be said they were necessarily satisfied of an offence against s 66C(4), which, on the face of it, requires satisfaction that the complainant was of or above 14 years of age (and under 16 years of age)? The question is, in my view, resolved by the proper construction of s 66C(4).
Section 66C(4) provided as follows: 66C Sexual intercourse-child between 10 and 16 … (4) Child between 14 and 16 - aggravated offence Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation is liable to imprisonment for 12 years.
Read literally and in isolation, this appears to require proof by the Crown, both that the complainant was of or above the age of 14, and under the age of 16. To read the provision literally and in isolation is not the proper approach to statutory construction: see Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 382; [1998] HCA 28 per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ; Xerri v R (2021) 292 A Crim R 355; [2021] NSWCCA 268 per Hamill J at [158]-[163]. The task is to be approached in the manner described by Kiefel CJ and Keane J in The Queen v A2; Magennis, Vaziri (2019) 269 CLR 507; [2019] HCA 35, where their Honours said (at [32]-[33]): "32 The method to be applied in construing a statute to ascertain the intended meaning of the words used is well settled. It commences with a consideration of the words of the provision itself, but it does not end there. A literal approach to construction, which requires the courts to obey the ordinary meaning or usage of the words of a provision, even if the result is improbable, has long been eschewed by this Court. It is now accepted that even words having an apparently clear ordinary or grammatical meaning may be ascribed a different legal meaning after the process of construction is complete. This is because consideration of the context for the provision may point to factors that tend against the ordinary usage of the words of the provision. 33 Consideration of the context for the provision is undertaken at the first stage of the process of construction. Context is to be understood in its widest sense. It includes surrounding statutory provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the statute and the statute as a whole. It extends to the mischief which it may be seen that the statute is intended to remedy. "Mischief" is an old expression. It may be understood to refer to a state of affairs which to date the law has not addressed. It is in that sense a defect in the law which is now sought to be remedied. The mischief may point most clearly to what it is that the statute seeks to achieve (footnotes omitted)."
To similar effect Bell and Gageler JJ said (at [124]): "The principles of interpretation were not in issue on the hearing of the appeals. In assigning legal meaning to the words of a provision, the court starts with consideration of the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the words taking into account both context and legislative purpose. Consideration of context in its widest sense and the purpose of the statute informs the interpretative task throughout. That consideration, and the consequences of giving a provision its literal, grammatical meaning, may lead the court to adopt a construction that departs from the ordinary meaning of the words. Purposive construction, however, does not extend to expanding the scope of a provision imposing criminal liability beyond its textual limits (footnotes omitted)."
Section 66C was, at the relevant time, in Division 10 of Part 3 of the Crimes Act. Part 3 was headed "Offences against the person", while Division 10 was headed "Offences in the nature of rape, offences relating to other acts of sexual assault etc". Within Division 10, s 66A to s 66EB created a number of offences with respect to sexual misconduct against children. Those offences were, by reference to the section headings: "Sexual intercourse - child under 10"; "Attempting, or assaulting with intent, to have sexual intercourse with child under 10"; "Sexual intercourse - child between 10 and 16"; "Attempting, or assaulting with intent, to have sexual intercourse with child between 10 and 16"; "Alternative verdicts"; "Persistent sexual abuse of a child"; and "Procuring or grooming child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity". For the purposes of the present analysis it necessary to set out only the offences created by s 66A(1) and (2), s 66B, s 66C(1)-(4): 66A Sexual intercourse-child under 10 (1) Any person who has sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 10 years is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty - imprisonment for life. (2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence under this section is to serve that sentence for the term of the person's natural life. … 66B Attempting, or assaulting with intent, to have sexual intercourse with child under 10 Any person who attempts to have sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 10 years, or assaults a child who is under the age of 10 years with intent to have sexual intercourse, shall be liable to imprisonment for 25 years. 66C Sexual intercourse-child between 10 and 16 (1) Child between 10 and 14 Any person who has sexual intercourse with a child who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years is liable to imprisonment for 16 years. (2) Child between 10 and 14-aggravated offence Any person who has sexual intercourse with a child who is of or above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years in circumstances of aggravation is liable to imprisonment for 20 years. (3) Child between 14 and 16 Any person who has sexual intercourse with a child who is of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. (4) Child between 14 and 16-aggravated offence Any person who has sexual intercourse with a child who is of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years in circumstances of aggravation is liable to imprisonment for 12 years. …
It is plain that these offences are concerned with criminalising sexual intercourse (as relevantly defined) with children under the age of 16. The provisions do this by creating a range of offences which provide for increased penalties for the aggravated forms of the offences in s 66A and s 66C, and as presently relevant, the extent to which the child is below the age of 16. It is not part of the purpose of the provisions to criminalise intercourse with persons above a certain age.
Turning to s 66C(4) the words of the provision do two things. They create an offence and they provide a maximum penalty for that offence. Given the purpose and context in which s 66C(4) appears, is clear that it provides the following elements of an offence:
The accused had sexual intercourse with another person;
That person was under the age of 16; and
Circumstances of aggravation applied.
The words "of or above the age of 14", in my view, do not create a further element. Those words are relevant only for the purposes of providing a demarcation from the offence in s 66C(2) for the purposes of penalty. If the offence created by s 66C(2) cannot be proved only due to an inability to prove the complainant was under the age of 14, the accused will be guilty of an offence against s 66C(4), provided it can be proved the complainant was under the age of 16. That was the case here.
In expressing the above view, I am aware that, on my construction, there would have been no need for the legislature to introduce s 80AF, in so far as that provision applies where there is uncertainty as to age. The legislature's perception as to the need for such a provision at the time it was enacted, however, provides no assistance as to the proper construction of s 66C as it stood at the relevant time, prior to the introduction of s 80AF.
It might also be thought, having regard to the length of time such provisions have been in force, that it is somewhat surprising that, if my construction be correct, it has not been stated in this manner before. The only authority directly relevant to the issue to which this Court was directed was R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116, noting the Crown also relied on Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353; [1991] HCA 24. In R v JGW, the complainant said he was "about 10" at the time of the relevant conduct, leaving open the possibility he was 10 years old in the context of an offence that required proof he was less than that age. Wood CJ at CL, with whom Barr and Greg James JJ agreed, said (at [85]-[86]): "85 … since the jury were satisfied that the conduct charged did occur, the appellant would properly have been convicted of the alternative and lesser offence available under s 78K Crimes Act, ie homosexual intercourse with a male person aged ten years or over but less than eighteen years. A conviction for this alternative is permissible under s 78J Crimes Act 1900. Although raised peripherally in argument, and not subject to any considered submission, I am not persuaded by the proposition that where the jury are satisfied that the conduct charged did occur, but are left uncertain whether the complainant was aged under or over ten years, they must return a verdict of acquittal of any offence. 86 The age is a matter of aggravation, attracting additional consequences by way of penalty. Where the jury is in doubt only as to whether the complainant was of an age that would attract an aggravation of penalty, then I am of the view that they could convict of the lesser offence, i.e. without the factor of aggravation."
Whilst expressed briefly, his Honour's reasoning is consistent with my own.
Given my view of the proper construction of the provision, there is no need for recourse to any principle derived from Gilson v The Queen. The jury were satisfied of facts that would render the applicant liable to conviction for an offence against s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Respondent/Defendant:

Legislation Cited (5)

Count Crimes Act 1900(NSW)

Crimes Act 1900(NSW)

Criminal Appeal Act 1912(NSW)

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986(NSW)

Cases Cited (31)

HEADNOTE [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] On 27 March 2023, following a trial by jury over which Abadee DCJ (the trial judge) presided, RM (the applicant) was convicted of 11 counts of sexual offending against his biological daughter (the complainant). The offending occurred over nine years, from when the complainant was aged 9 to 18, and included indecent assault, unlawful sexual intercourse, aggravated sexual intercourse, and unlawful sexual touching. The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years, commencing on 3 January 2023, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 5 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against each of the convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The applicant's case was that the offending conduct had not occurred. He challenged the complainant's credibility generally and relied on her lack of contemporaneous complaint, lack of recollection and inconsistency about details tangential to the offending conduct, and alleged motive to lie as undermining the reliability of her version. The applicant also pointed to aspects of his own and the complainant's conduct which were alleged to make his commission of the offences implausible. In respect of count 5 (a charge under s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of aggravated sexual intercourse when the complainant was "above the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years"), the applicant submitted that the complainant's evidence that she was "13 or 14" when the offending occurred created a reasonable doubt about whether she was under the age of 14 such that the applicant's conviction on this count ought be set aside. The parties made submissions in this Court as to the consequences of such a finding, given that the trial judge had ruled that the statutory alternative offence, s 66C(4), which is identical as to conduct to s 66C(2) but applies where the victim is above the age of 14 and under the age of 16, could be left to the jury. The Crown submitted that the applicant ought be found guilty of the alternative count, whereas the respondent submitted that this Court could not be satisfied that the jurors would have been unanimous in finding the applicant guilty under s 66C(4). The Court held (Adamson JA, Dhanji and Sweeney JJ agreeing, with additional reasons of Dhanji J), granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal against conviction in respect of count 5 but otherwise dismissing the appeal: Issue 1: whether the verdicts were unreasonable (1) Save as to the conviction of count 5, having reviewed all of the evidence in the trial, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the guilt of the applicant on all counts: at [253] (Adamson JA); [278] (Dhanji J); [297] (Sweeney J). M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 30, applied. Issue 2: whether the verdict of guilty of count 5 was unreasonable (2) The evidence was insufficient to exclude the possibility that the offence was committed after the complainant turned 14 and it is necessary to quash the conviction on that count: at [254], [256] (Adamson JA); [280] (Dhanji J); [297] (Sweeney J). Issue 3: effect of quashing the conviction of count 5 Per Adamson JA (Sweeney J agreeing): (3) It is consistent with the authorities (Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353; [1991] HCA 24 (Gilson) and R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116 (JGW)) to set aside the verdict in respect of count 5 and substitute a verdict in respect of the statutory alternative, an offence contrary to s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act. This approach is authorised by s 80AB(9) of the Crimes Act: at [273] (Adamson JA). Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353; [1991] HCA 24; R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116, applied. (4) Applying JGW, as it is only the complainant's age (whether she was under the age of 14 or not) that constitutes the division between an offence under s 66C(2) and s 66C(4) and the alternative offence under s 66C(4) is the lesser offence of the two, it is permissible for this Court to convict the applicant of the alternative count: at [272]-[273] (Adamson JA). (5) The matter ought be remitted to the District Court for sentencing under s 12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW): at [273] (Adamson JA). Per Dhanji J (Sweeney J agreeing): (6) The question for this Court is whether the jury must have been satisfied that the applicant committed an offence against s 66C(4) on the facts found by them, including that the complainant was under the age of 14. This question can be resolved by the proper construction of s 66C(4), without need for recourse to authorities: at [281], [292] (Dhanji J). (7) Reading s 66C(4) in light of its context and purpose (to criminalise intercourse with persons below a certain age), if the offence created by s 66C(2) cannot be proved only due to the inability to prove the complainant was under the age of 14, the accused will be guilty of an offence against s 66C(4) provided it can be proved the complainant was under the age of 16. The words "of or above the age of 14" in s 66C(4) do not create a further element for that offence: at [286]-[288]. (8) The jury were satisfied of facts that would render the applicant liable to conviction for an offence against s 66(4) of the Crimes Act: at [292].

[2024] NSWCCA 81

[2002] HCA 53

[2001] VSCA 188

[2016] HCA 35

(1990) 171 CLR 207

(1991) 172 CLR 353

(1973) 129 CLR 460

(1994) 181 CLR 487

(2002) 213 CLR 606

(2020) 268 CLR 123

(1998) 194 CLR 355

(1998) 45 NSWLR 362