That concluded the complainant's examination in chief. She was then cross-examined.
31 To a large extent, it appears that the cross-examination was based upon quite extensive records and reports from a variety of individuals in the medical and counselling professions. This resulted in propositions being put to the complainant, apparently drawn from histories and notes taken by doctors (including a psychiatrist) psychologist and counsellors. The actual documentation that seems to have been the source of those propositions never found its way into evidence (with some exceptions, a psychiatric report, and progress notes of a psychologist). The complainant was repeatedly asked if she "accepted" the propositions put. To a large extent her answers were equivocal - frequently, she said that she could not remember, but that she "accepted" the propositions, or the possibility that what was being put had occurred. But later (AB 307) she said:
"I don't understand what you mean by when you ask do I accept that, does that mean I agree with that?"
32 The cross-examination established that, during 2004, the complainant had received counselling from a number of people in various branches of those professions. These included her class teacher, Ms Ruskin; a school counsellor, Colleen Visser; a psychiatrist, Dr Michelle Fryer; and a psychologist (wrongly named in the transcript also as Dr Fryer, accurately Ms Claudia Valenzuela); a Paul Johnson (who the complainant thought was a "natural counsellor, psychologist or psychiatrist, in Ballina, I think").
33 A report by Dr Fryer was tendered. There was then a discussion about whether the report ought to be read to the jury in the hearing of the complainant, the judge expressing some sensitivity, given the complainant's age and the nature of the contents of the report. Not unreasonably (and exhibiting a considerable degree of maturity) the complainant interjected:
"With all due respect your Honour, how am I supposed to answer questions if I -"
34 After discussion, partly in the absence of the jury, his Honour told the jury that the report would not be read in full, but that defence counsel would read to the complainant those parts of it on which he intended to cross-examine.
35 The complainant agreed that, during 2004, she had seen Dr Fryer, and that when she did so, she had depressed mood, severe anxiety, and was in an obsessive compulsive frame of mind. She agreed that she had spoken of fears for the appellant, difficulties with her parents, and had said that she wanted to live with the appellant. She agreed that she had reported, up to six times a week, incidents of bullying at school. She agreed that from about the middle of 2004 she had begun losing weight, suffered from poor concentration, that her school performance deteriorated, that she was constantly talking to herself, and that it was about this time that she started seeing the school counsellor, Ms Visser. She saw Ms Visser on 8 December 2004. She agreed that, on that day, she drew a picture in which she placed the appellant very close to herself, as the most important person in her life. She agreed also that, a week earlier, on 1 December, she had told Ms Visser that she wanted more access with the appellant. She accepted that she had seen a general practitioner, Dr Traise (who had referred her to Dr Fryer) in early September 2004, and she had spoken to him of a possible two week trial period living with the appellant full-time, and that this "would show mum" and that she had told Dr Traise that when she was with the appellant she was happy.
36 She accepted (while expressly disclaiming any actual memory of it) that she had developed a practice, at home, of looking out of a window to see if her father was driving up and down the street. (No time frame was specified in the questions on this topic.)
37 The complainant was asked about an occasion, in October 2004, when she went on a school excursion to Brisbane (AB 313). The group stayed in a holiday park. She agreed that she had resisted going on the excursion because it would disrupt her routine of seeing the appellant. At her request she had stayed with the appellant the night before she left. She accepted (again while denying any memory of it) that she sat on the floor, at his feet, while he sat on an easy chair.
38 It was put to the complainant that she had found it difficult to settle that night, and that she had, on three occasions, left her room to go to the appellant's room, and that on each occasion the appellant had taken her back, holding her hand and reassuring her about the excursion. To each of these questions she replied that she could not remember; at times she accepted the possibility of what was put, but eventually diluted this by saying "anything's possible". To a suggestion made to her that, during that evening, she was becoming hysterical, she replied: "could be". The complainant did agree that, while on the excursion, she was upset because she wanted to be with the appellant, and that she had told her teacher that she wanted to go home. She denied a proposition that, at Dream World, she had smeared blood on her face.
39 She agreed that, during the latter part of 2004, she had told her teacher that the appellant came into her classroom, and told her that he loved her; that in the playground she saw him standing under trees; that he came to the door of the classroom and watched her; and that, at lunchtime, she sat in the front office because she could see the appellant come into the office each day; that she worried when doors were closed; that the appellant would knock on the door and say "[C], open the door, I can't get in", and that she would try to open the door for him; that she became very upset when the office staff told her to stop opening the doors. It was clearly implied in the questions, and, it seems, accepted by the complainant, that these assertions by her to Ms Visser were no more than imagination, even fantasy.
40 The complainant agreed that she had told Ms Visser that if she accidentally kicked the leg of a chair, she might think it was the appellant's leg; but she accepted only the possibility that she might also have said that she would rub the leg of the chair and "tell daddy how sorry [she] was".
41 She accepted the possibility that she might have said to Ms Visser:
"Why doesn't anyone understand I just want to be with dad?"
42 It was put to the complainant that her evidence the previous day, in chief, that the appellant had told her that if she did not come to live with him he would go to Western Australia was incorrect; she maintained that he had said that.
43 Finally, it was put to the complainant explicitly that the appellant had never touched her vagina, and had never had penile sex with her, nor attempted to do so. She adhered to the account she had given in the interview.
44 Earlier in the cross-examination, a series of questions was put to the complainant, apparently designed to challenge her statement in the interview that, about 2 years previously, she had ceased contact with the appellant. The questions related to counselling discussions with Ms Visser in February 2005, in which, it was suggested, the complainant had told Ms Visser that she maintained weekly telephone contact with the appellant, and that the complainant had shown the appellant her school portfolio. She agreed with the former proposition, but did not accept that she had shown the appellant her school portfolio.
45 In re-examination, the complainant said that she had expressed fears for the appellant. Her fear was that the appellant would think that she did not love him, and that caused her anxiety. That was why she had said that she wanted to spend more time with him. She said that she had not in fact wanted to spend more time with the appellant, but that she had said so because of what he had said to her, including that he would leave and go to live in Western Australia. She said:
"He'd say 'You don't love me, do you, if you don't come and live with me you don't love me, why don't you love me?' over and over again, he'd always say it." (AB 330)