A Supreme Court jury has acquitted a Launceston man of two counts of indecently assaulting his then nine-year-old de facto stepdaughter, after a three-day trial and less than one hour deliberating.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The man, who cannot be identified, appeared on the third day of the trial before Justice Brian Martin in Launceston on Wednesday.
Though Crown prosecutor Elizabeth Avery had initially brought allegations of maintaining a sexual relationship with a person aged under 17, this charge was dropped on Wednesday after the complainant did not allege physical contact for one of the three incidents while giving evidence.
The man was found not guilty of the remaining two.
IN OTHER NEWS
All allegations of any indecent conduct were denied by the man. In an interview with police, played to the court, he said their physical contact went only as far as tickling and cuddling, and an instance where he helped her in the shower following an injury.
The girl's mother, a school friend and the sexual education teacher she first disclosed the alleged incidents to, all gave evidence.
On Thursday, the jury heard closing submissions from the prosecution and defence, which both centred on the question of whether the complainant - the only person to provide a first-hand account - was a reliable and honest witness.
Ms Avery argued the young girl was, with her evidence supported by other witnesses, while noting the differences arising across three police interviews and cross-examination in court.
The police interviews played to the court on Tuesday span a period from October 2015 - when the girl was 12 years old - to June this year.
In these, the complainant accused the man of touching her sexually, secretly recording her in the shower, and offering her favours in return for her exposing herself to him. Some details only arose in later interviews.
Ms Avery suggested these differences showed the young girl maturing or being more comfortable to talk in later interviews, and was consistent with cases of sexual assault involving children who may often not have an initial understanding of an event.
However, defence counsel James Oxley disputed this, arguing that the girl was not a reliable witness and the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events had occurred.
He argued her evidence did not meet this standard due to the "inconsistencies" and "untruths", with it "much more likely" the allegations were false.
While you're with us, you can now sign up to receive breaking news updates and daily headlines direct to your inbox. Sign up here.