Davidson (a pseudonym) v R [2024] NSWCCA 60 — Evidence Act 1995, ss 97A, 101 — child sexual offences — tendency evidence derived from single witness and involved acts different from charged offence — no “exceptional circumstances” to allow consideration of s 97A(5) factors to rebut s 97A(2) presumption of significant probative value — judge correctly admitted tendency evidence of sexual interest in person with similar characteristics to complainant — jury directions ameliorated danger of unfair prejudice

SA v R [2023] NSWCCA 50 — Evidence — context evidence — Evidence Act 1995, s 137 — exclusion of prejudicial evidence — trial judge did not err in admitting, as context evidence, parts of complainant’s statement disclosing earlier abuse, including fellatio — judge properly considered test in s 137 — evidence went to complainant’s continuing fear and delay in complaint — any prejudice met by appropriate directions — s 137 not engaged for those portions of context evidence not objected to at trial

Grant v R [2024] NSWCCA 78 — Crimes Act 1900, ss 66EA, 81 (rep) — historic indecent assaults (s 81 (rep)) constituting maintain unlawful relationship offence (s 66EA) — acts committed by female — s 81 offence can only be committed by male: Lam v R [2024] NSWCCA 6 — appellant’s relationship not unlawful as s 66EA applies retrospectively if sexual acts making up unlawful relationship were illegal at time committed — indictment quashed and acquittal ordered

R v Bredal [2024] NSWCCA 75 — Cth sentencing — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b)(iii) — Cth child sex offender not to be immediately released on recognizance unless exceptional circumstances — online grooming (Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.27(1)) — open to sentencing judge to find exceptional circumstances on combination of matters including respondent’s voluntarily withdrawal from offending — meaning of “exceptional circumstances” discussed

R v Carey [2024] NSWCCA 90 — Crown sentence appeal — historical child sexual offences — sentence manifestly inadequate — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (C(SP) Act), ss 19, 21B (formerly s 25AA) — applicable maximum penalties, and sentencing in accordance with patterns and practices at time of sentencing — limited number of truly comparable cases — cases to be from period when maximum penalty (or SNPP) was same or similar, and after introduction of s 25AA(1) — residual discretion — respondent resentenced

Crimes High Risk Offenders Legislation Amendment Act 2024 — Incorporation of strangulation offences — Schedules 1[2] and [3] respectively expand the definitions of “serious sex offence” in s 5(1)(b) and “offence of a sexual nature” in s 5(2)(b) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 to include offences under Crimes Act 1900, s 37(2) [choking, suffocation and strangulation with intent to enable commission of another indictable offence] — commenced on proclamation on 21 June 2024 (s 2, LW 21.06.24)

GN v R [2024] NSWCCA 39 — Evidence — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 293 (now s 294CB) — evidence of prior sexual experience — sexual offences — 11-year old complainant described applicant’s ejaculation to police 12 months after offence — judge’s inference such a detailed description unlikely unless actually experienced not contrary to s 293 — reasoning did not depend on judicial notice but was common sense — Crown’s closing address suggesting 11-year old unable to give such detail unless subject to applicant’s conduct did not cause miscarriage of justice

Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King [2024] HCA 8 — Cth sentencing — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16AAB — mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse offences — Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.22A(1) — possess child abuse material accessed by carriage service — transitional provision — s 16AAB applies if offender possesses material after provision commenced, regardless of when accessed — mandatory minimum sentences serve double function of providing yardstick, the opposite of maximum penalty, and restricting sentencing power to the minimum sentence subject to limited exceptions

Xerri v The King [2024] HCA 5 — Sentencing — Crimes Act 1900, s 66EA(1) — maintain unlawful sexual relationship with child — offending conduct committed while predecessor offence in force — applicant sentenced on basis of current s 66EA which carries life imprisonment — former s 66EA carried 25 years imprisonment — CCA majority correct to conclude current offence applies retrospectively so life imprisonment applies — current s 66EA is a new offence such that s 19 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 does not apply

BB v R [2024] NSWCCA 13 22/02/2024 — Sentencing — Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (C(CP) Act), ss 16, 18 — applicability of Children’s Court sentencing regime — Crimes Act 1900, s 61J(2)(d) — aggravated sexual assault (victim under 16) committed by applicant when a child — although judge misstated s 61J offences were “serious children’s indictable offences” (C(CP) Act, s 3), they were to be dealt with according to law as applicant over 21 when charged — judge did not err by failing to consider lost opportunity for applicant to be sentenced under Children’s Court regime

Stein v R [2023] NSWCCA 324 — Sentencing — sexual assault — sentencing judge did not err in finding moral culpability relevant to objective seriousness — applicant’s state of mind relevant in assessing moral culpability and objective seriousness — applicant’s knowledge of lack of consent elevated blameworthiness and offence seriousness — Bugmy principles — no error in judge refusing to reduce sentence because of childhood deprivation — applicant claimed sexual activity consensual, not that early dysfunction left him unable to understand consent

Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 — Sentencing — Crimes Act 1900, s 61HE(3), (4) (rep) — knowledge of sexual consent and offender's self-induced intoxication — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(5AA) — self-induced intoxication not mitigatory — applicant convicted of sexual assault after jury trial — judge found applicant knew victim not consenting — no error in judge's approach — s 21A(5AA) prohibits taking into account applicant's self-induced intoxication as mitigating factor — Fisher v R [2021] NSWCCA 91 (Fullerton and Adamson JJ) followed

Melville v R [2023] NSWCCA 284 — Sentencing — extra-curial punishment — applicant convicted of child sexual offences was subject to public/media attention regarding previous like offending — judge did not err by finding applicant not subject to extra-curial punishment — public denunciation following conviction does not generally constitute extra-curial punishment — media reporting naming offender ordinary consequence of such offences — personal consequences including loss of employment may still be relevant on sentence

Lam v R [2024] NSWCCA 6 — Offences — Crimes Act 1900, s 81 (rep) — historic indecent assault — offences allegedly committed by female — s 5F(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 — appeal against orders refusing demurrer and refusing to quash indictment — offence not known at law — s 81 offence can only be committed by males — indictment quashed

Experience of complainants of adult sexual offences in the District Court of NSW: A trial transcript analysis (2023)

LF v R [2023] NSWCCA 232 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 306U, 306Y — child sexual offences — child witness’ evidence in chief recorded in police interview — application to exclude interview on basis not in “interests of justice” to tender recording — judge did not err in dismissing application — Evidence Act 1995, ss 165, 165A — judge did not err in directions about unreliability of witness’ evidence

Arizabaleta v R [2023] NSWCCA 217 — Evidence — sexual offences — accused convicted of three counts — complainant only made immediate and clear complaint about one count — equivocal or delayed complaint about remaining counts — verdicts not unreasonable — observations on malleability of witnesses’ memory

Decision Restricted [2023] NSWCCA 163 — Evidence Act, ss 97, 97A, 101— tendency evidence — child sexual offences — cross-admissibility of tendency evidence of three complainants — tendency notice alleged acts less serious than some charged offences — no error in judge excluding evidence under s 101 — danger of unfair prejudice outweighed probative value — observations on “exceptional circumstances” in s 97A

HA v R [2023] NSWCCA 274 — Sentencing — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(2)(k) — aggravating factor of abuse of trust/authority — Crimes Act 1900, s 66A(1) (since amended) — sexual intercourse with child under 10 — Crown and applicant accepted s 21A(2)(k) satisfied — judge erred by relying upon matters falling within aggravated s 66A(2) offence (under authority) — De Simoni error

Kilby v R [2023] NSWCCA 247 — Sentencing — aggravating features — applicant sentenced for child sexual offences including sexual intercourse and act of indecency with child (Crimes Act 1900, ss 66C(1), 61N (rep) respectively) — judge referred to applicant’s position of authority as “aggravating feature” — judge did not conclude aggravated offence or Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 21A(2)(k) feature of statutory aggravation, had been made out — position of authority can be considered as part of instinctive synthesis

R v Packer [2023] NSWCCA 87 — Sentencing — Crown appeal — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(2)(g) — substantial harm — respondent committed sexual offences against live-in housekeeper and disseminated intimate images which damaged victim’s relationship with her family in Nepal — judge failed to take into account significant emotional harm suffered by victim as an aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(g)

R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184 — Sentencing — Crimes Act 1900, s 61HA(3) (since amended) — knowledge of non-consent — respondent convicted of sexual offences after trial — judge’s finding respondent’s state of mind in “least serious” category of knowledge (s 61HA(3)(c): no reasonable grounds for believing consent) open — if judge not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of more culpable forms of knowledge in s 61HA(3)(a), (b), finding of knowledge in s 61HA(3)(c) necessary default — in assessing objective seriousness, generalised phrases or range labels not useful — R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184

Van Gestel v R [2023] NSWCCA 263 — Offences — Crimes Act 1900, ss 61M(1)(rep), 61E(1)(rep) — historical indecent assault of children — no “indecent intent” required — majority decision in R v Court [1989] 1 AC 28 not followed — Evidence Act 1995, ss 66, 108(3)(b) — complaint evidence relevant to re-establishing credibility

MK v R [2023] NSWCCA 180 — Offences — Crimes Act 1900, s 66EA — persistent sexual abuse of child — five-judge bench — statutory interpretation — offence requires existence of relationship “in which” unlawful sexual acts were committed — word “maintains” in s 66EA(1) adds nothing to actus reus beyond satisfaction of s 66EA(2) — no requirement for sexual relationship over and above unlawful sexual acts — judges’ directions conformed with proper construction — RW v R [2023] NSWCCA 2 (restricted) and R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142 overruled

Decision Restricted [2023] NSWCCA 223 — Appeals — Conviction appeal — child sexual assault — verdicts not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence — appeal dismissed — observations on complainant responses to sexual assaults

EE v R [2023] NSWCCA 188 — Appeals — unreasonable verdicts — Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1) — judge-alone trial — judge did not err in resolving conflicting evidence of complaint — complaint “limited” and not especially memorable — error in judge’s reasoning process resolving disputed facts not challengeable under “first limb” of s 6(1) (unreasonable verdict) but challengeable under “third limb” (miscarriage of justice) — Dansie supersedes any suggestion in Filippou v The Queen that errors in reasoning process can engage first limb of s 6(1) — verdict not unreasonable

Roberts v R [2023] NSWCCA 187 — Appeals — fitness to be tried — Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, s 44 — applicant raised fitness to be tried for first time on appeal — despite new legislative regime prescribing different decision-maker (judge-alone, not jury), applicable test still that in R v RTI (2003) 58 NSWLR 438 — question of principle on appeal not based on identity of decision-maker but rather whether miscarriage of justice occurred

Lee v R [2023] NSWCCA 203 — Directions — sexual offences — consent — Crimes Act 1900, s 61HE(3)(b), (c) (rep) — “non-advertent” recklessness not abolished by unreasonable belief in consent — no error in judge’s directions — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 292A–249E — mandatory consent directions only apply if accused arraigned after commencement of provisions

AB v R [2023] NSWCCA 165 — Directions — child sexual offences — child accused — Crown disclaimed consciousness of guilt reasoning in case but used it to rebut doli incapax presumption — judge gave no Edwards or Zoneff directions to jury — absence of direction in light of Crown’s conduct of trial occasioned miscarriage of justice — acquittal entered

Exploring justice system experiences of complainants in sexual offence matters: An interview study (2023).

The progress of sexual offences through the NSW criminal justice system (2019).

R v Clarke [2023] NSWCCA 123 — Evidence Act 1995, ss 97A, 101(2) — child sexual offences — cross-admissibility of tendency evidence for three complainants — judge erred in considering s 97A(5) factors to rebut s 97A(2) presumption of significant probative value in absence of “exceptional circumstances” — circumstances must be more than just sufficient to enliven s 97A(5) factors to be “exceptional”

PJ v R [2023] NSWCCA 105 — Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F(3) — appeal of “interlocutory judgment or order” — child sexual offences — judge refused leave for applicant to recall child witnesses who gave pre-recorded evidence under Criminal Procedure Act 1986, Sch 2, cl 87 — refusal of leave not appellable under s 5F(3) — no jurisdiction to hear appeal

Murray v R [2023] NSWCCA 79 — Evidence — assessing reliability — child sexual assault — complainant socially disadvantaged, deprived and behaviourally troubled — system of individual justice relies on jury assessing witness’ evidence, not based on assumed social or material worth — no class of child witness inherently incapable of truthfulness or accuracy — verdict not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence

Kramer v R [2023] NSWCCA 152 — Sentencing — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1900, s 61I — sexual intercourse without consent — Community Correction Order (CCO) imposed — penile-vaginal intercourse offence committed with knowledge of non-consent within context of other consensual sexual activity — not open to judge to characterise offending as just above low range — CCO manifestly inadequate — observations regarding social media apps, the pandemic and sexual consent

Giacometti v R [2023] NSWCCA 150 — Sentencing — sexual and violent offences perpetrated against partner — applicant relied upon psychiatric/psychological reports with inconsistencies in histories provided by applicant — judge failed to take into account relevant mitigatory matters and erred in rejecting parts of subjective case — while open to judge to regard applicant's inconsistent hearsay to experts with scepticism, rejection of part of the evidence did not justify rejection of almost entire subjective case

AC v R [2023] NSWCCA 133 — Sentencing — five-judge bench — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (C(SP) Act), s 25AA(2) — standard non-parole period (SNPP) at time of offence applies for child sexual offences — C(SP) Act, Sch 2, cl 91 — retrospective application of increased SNPP for indecent assault of child under 10 (Crimes Act 1900, s 61M(2) (rep)) — increased SNPP does not have retrospective application — scope of s 25AA(2), in clear language, not limited by earlier enacted transitional provision — GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 correctly decided

Richards v R [2023] NSWCCA 107 — Sentencing — historical child sexual offences — good character — no offending from 1986 — judge’s assessment of applicant’s character of “little weight” open — conviction-free period distinct from factual finding that offender has not reoffended — delay in complaint — judge did not err in considering delay — delay result of child sexual offending’s nature and not a mitigating factor

BDO v The Queen [2023] HCA 16 — Criminal responsibility — sexual offences allegedly committed by child between 10 and 14 — Criminal Code (Qld), s 29(2) — presumption of incapacity of child between 10 and 14 rebuttable by evidence of capacity to know they ought not do act — presumption of incapacity under s 29(2) not equivalent to moral wrongness required by common law (RP v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 641) but is informed by it

DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 — Sentencing — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (C(SP) Act), s 25AA(2); sch 2, cl 68 — applicable standard non-parole periods (SNPPs) for child sexual offences — transitional provisions — Crimes Act 1900, s 66C(2) — aggravated sexual intercourse with child aged 10 to 14 committed before 1 January 2015 — judge erred by applying SNPP which commenced 29 June 2015: C(SP) Act, s 25AA(2); sch 2, cl 68 — sentencing judge led into error by parties — counsel have responsibility to properly assist court

DPP (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81 — Sentencing — child sexual offences — Crown appeal — judge erred imposing indicative sentences below proper range — aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate — indicative sentences can signal error in aggregate sentences: Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 25AA(3) — Crown to identify trauma of sexual abuse on child victim where not self-evident from facts — relevance of uncharged acts in sentencing — DPP (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v TM [2023] NSWCA 75 — Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, ss 3(3), 3A(2), (5) — Crimes Act 1900, s 91H(2) — possess child abuse material — juvenile offender — judge erred by declaring respondent’s entry on Child Protection Register erroneous on basis exception in s 3A(2) applied — meaning of “registrable person” and “arising from the same incident” in s 3A — possessing child abuse material involving actual children is an offence committed against those children

Gardiner v R [2023] NSWCCA 89 — Procedure — judge-alone trials — child sexual assault — judge erred by making adverse findings on applicant’s credibility based on his demeanour in dock and insignificant evidentiary point, without notice — Criminal Procedure Act 1996, s 133 — obligation to give reasons in judge-alone trials — reasons did not disclose how demeanour affected credit — applicant denied procedural fairness

Barney v R [2023] NSWCCA 85 — Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1) — unreasonable verdicts — child sexual offences — guilty verdicts not inconsistent with acquittals — plausible explanation for verdicts specific to the evidence — complainant’s credibility and general reliability of her other evidence not damaged — observations on credibility and reliability

Decision Restricted [2023] NSWCCA 119 — Directions — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 161A — tendency evidence — standard of proof — charged and uncharged acts of varying seriousness adduced as tendency evidence — judge’s directions did not invite circular reasoning

Rahman v R [2021] NSWCCA 290 — Directions — right to silence — applicant answered questions in electronically recorded interview until allegations of offending raised — judge failed to adequately direct jury on applicant’s right to silence — right to silence only referred to in summing up — where evidence is led by Crown of applicant’s right to silence, conviction ordinarily set aside where no direction given

Park v R [2023] NSWCCA 71 — Directions — sexual offences — accused gave evidence — judge erred in giving incomplete Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 direction — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 294(2)(c) — judge erred in directing jury that delay in complaint not relevant to credibility — insufficient evidence to justify direction — omission of some alternative counts from indictment liable to confuse — retrial ordered

BQ v R [2023] NSWCCA 34 — Evidence Act 1995, s 79 — expert opinion evidence — children’s responses to sexual abuse — type of evidence adduced approved in Decision Restricted [2022] NSWCCA 136 — evidence did not fall outside expert’s qualifications and expertise — no invariable requirement for direction that expert evidence not relevant to credibility of particular complainants — no miscarriage of justice

Cook (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 282 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 293 (now s 294CB) — prohibition on admitting evidence of prior sexual experience/activity — victim disclosed to applicant previous abuse by another 18 months before subject offences — judge correctly excluded evidence — events too far apart in time and not sufficiently related (s 293(4)(a)(i)) — “connected set of circumstances” in s 293(4)(a)(ii) does not include reporting of previous offences or related committal proceedings

Elsworth v R [2022] NSWCCA 276 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 293 (now s 294CB) — prohibition on admitting evidence of prior sexual activity/experience — Crimes Act 1900, 61I — sexual intercourse without consent — judge correct to exclude evidence of complainant’s conversation with applicant after offence regarding prior sexual assault five years earlier — evidence did not fall within s 293(4) exceptions as temporal requirement in s 293(4)(a)(i) not satisfied, and evidence not relevant

RC v R [2022] NSWCCA 281 — Evidence Act 1995, ss 65, 106(1) — exceptions to hearsay and credibility rules — child sexual assault — complainant an unfavourable witness — judge erred in admitting complainant’s police statement — silence not sufficient to establish denial of substance of evidence under s 106(1)(a)(ii) — witness was not “unavailable” under s 65 — “all reasonable steps” not taken by Crown to compel witness to give evidence — conviction quashed and re-trial ordered

R v Taylor [2022] NSWCCA 256 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16AAB, 16AAC — mandatory minimum penalties for specified child sexual offences — judge did not err by imposing mandatory minimum (pre-discount) — not the case that, unless offence within least serious category, mandatory minimum term or higher must, as a matter of law, be imposed — mandatory minimum fixes lower limit, and discretion to impose it to be determined on established principles

DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 — multiple child sexual offences — judge did not err in not specifying objective seriousness by reference to scale of seriousness — judge satisfied requirement to clearly state findings of objective seriousness noting differences in that assessment reflected in indicative sentences — whilst not an error to assess objective seriousness on hypothetical continuum of seriousness, failure to do so not erroneous

Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 53A — aggregate sentences — sexual offending against multiple victims — judge did not fail to give effect to totality principle — no requirement to specify notional cumulation and concurrency across offences and complainants when imposing aggregate sentence

Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(5A) — good character in child sexual offences — applicant was victim’s parents’ friend before victim’s birth — judge erred by not taking good character into account — no evidence applicant actively used good character to gain access to victim

Decision Restricted [2023] NSWCCA 10 — child sexual offences — Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014, cl 214A — parole supervision limitation — judge’s refusal to find special circumstances open — while limitation generally a significant factor in determining special circumstances, limitation not only factor considered by judge — observations regarding findings of objective seriousness

Vella v R [2022] NSWCCA 204 — Jury Act 1977, ss 68A, 68B, 73A — jury deliberations — Sheriff’s investigations — historical child sex offences — Sheriff’s report under s 73A regarding alleged bias and consideration of irrelevant material inadmissible due to “exclusionary rule” in Smith v Western Australia (2014) 250 CLR 473 — no evidence to support grounds of appeal

GL v R [2022] NSWCCA 202 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 25AA — sentencing for child sex offences under current practices — standard non-parole period (SNPP) at time of offence applies (s 25AA(2)) — SNPP for s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900 (rep) (aggravated indecent assault) increased after offence committed and had retrospective operation — judge erred by applying higher SNPP — more appropriate to apply clear words of s 25AA than transitional provisions

Baker v R [2022] NSWCCA 195 — sentencing — aggravating factors — “threat” — sexual assault — applicant and complainant strangers — applicant told complainant not to inform anyone of assaults — judge did not err in finding statement to be a threat and therefore an aggravating factor — not necessary for precise consequences to be spelled out — statement carried implication of adverse consequences due to criminal nature of conduct

Stephens v The Queen [2022] HCA 31 — Crimes Act 1900, s 80AF — historic child sex offences — uncertainty about offence date — majority of NSW Court of Criminal Appeal erred by finding s 80AF was “procedural” only and operated retrospectively — s 80AF changed the law concerning elements of offence itself — provision can only be invoked at commencement of trial — no application to trials already commenced — acquittal on relevant counts

Madden v R [2022] NSWCCA 196 — Crimes Act 1900, ss 78, 78T (both rep), Sch 11, cl 82 — sexual offences — repeal of historic sexual offence limitation periods — s 66C(1) prosecutions not statute-barred under s 78 because words of Sch 11, cl 82 make clear s 78 repealed retrospectively — however s 78K (rep) prosecutions statute-barred under s 78T — miscarriage of justice occasioned by incompetence of trial counsel — verdict for some offences unreasonable and not supported by evidence

R v Lau [2022] NSWCCA 131 — sentencing — Crown appeal — child sexual offences — sentence manifestly inadequate — observations providing guidance for sentencing judges — summary of facts must be accurate and include material facts bearing upon objective seriousness — where Form 1, sentence should be longer than for primary offence alone if appropriate — special circumstances must be sufficiently “special” to justify variation of statutory ratio

DR v R [2022] NSWCCA 151 — sentencing — child sexual offences — applicant had deprived background but no evidence of causal link to offending — judge did not err by not reducing applicant’s moral culpability — full weight otherwise given to deprived upbringing in instinctive synthesis, notwithstanding no causal link to offending — Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 and Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 applied

Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150 — sentencing — Crimes Act 1900, s 61J — aggravated sexual assault — multiple counts — no error in finding objective seriousness of each sexual assault affected by proximate commission of other sexual assaults — course of conduct relevant to applicant's state of mind and victim's vulnerability

Harper v R [2022] NSWCCA 211 — conviction appeal — Crimes Act 1900, s 61I — sexual assault — unreasonable verdict ground — appeal dismissed — intermediate appellate courts must avoid rigid stereotypical expectations in sexual assault matters as to how complainants should behave — court not assisted by reliance upon such arguments when contending unreasonable conviction ground — verdicts not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence

DPP (NSW) v Presnell [2022] NSWCCA 146 — Crimes Act 1900, s 66DC(a) — sexual act “with or towards” a child — Crown appeal — stay of proceedings — phrase “with or towards” in s 66DC(a) creates two separate offences — ‘towards’ requires intention to engage with another — no error in judge’s finding mere presence of complainant insufficient

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2022 — amends Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 — replaces s 25AA(1) with new s 21B(1) — court must sentence (or resentence) in accordance with practices at time of sentencing — court may sentence according to practices at time of offending if offence not a child sexual offence and exceptional circumstances exist — inserts new s 67(2)(h) — expands definition of prescribed sexual offences so that ICOs cannot be made for certain sexual offences regardless of when committed or which provision is charged — commenced on assent on 18 October 2022 (s 2)

Sita v R [2022] NSWCCA 90 — Conviction appeal — directions — 10 child sexual offences involving complainants JU and KK — applicant found guilty on only count involving JU corroborated by KK — although Markuleski direction appropriate, direction that doubt about one complainant’s evidence could not affect assessment of count involving other complainant erroneous — not anticipated jury would take path of reasoning that led to acquittals on all counts other than only count corroborated by other complainant

AJ v R [2022] NSWCCA 136 — Evidence Act 1995, ss 79, 108C — specialised knowledge of behaviour of child sexual abuse victims — judge erred by admitting evidence related to opinion that sexual offending against children often occurred in brazen settings — such statements not within expertise of expert relied on by Crown — observations concerning preferred approach trial judges may take to such evidence

Aziz (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 76 — Evidence Act 1995, ss 79, 108C — expert evidence on children’s responses to sexual abuse — “opinion” includes conclusions drawn from others’ research — evidence admitted without objection at trial — no miscarriage of justice caused by admission of evidence in particular circumstances of this case

R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87 — Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, ss 4, 28 — mental health impairment — criminal responsibility — child sexual offending — judge correct to conclude sexsomnia, a form of parasomnia, not a mental health impairment and to acquit respondent — respondent’s condition made his actions involuntary — absence of volition while asleep is universal and not a disturbance of volition — common law defence of “sane automatism” continues to apply

Smith v R [2022] NSWCCA 88 — Crimes Act 1900, ss 61M(2) (rep), 66DB, 80AF — aggravated indecent assault, replaced by sexual touching of child — uncertainty when offending occurred — judge erred in applying standard non-parole period for s 61M(2) offence — open to Crown to prosecute under ss 61M(2) or 66DB pursuant to s 80AF where same maximum penalty applies — alternative interpretation results in inability to prosecute and frustrates object of s 80AF

Hodgson v R [2022] NSWCCA 72 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 133 — judge-alone trial — applicant found guilty of historical child sexual offences — convictions unreasonable — judge placed undue weight on demeanour of complainants’ and applicant — unchallenged evidence in defence case meant judge should have had a reasonable doubt

Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82 — Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, ss 2, 3 — applicant acquitted of historical child sexual assault charges on appeal — application for costs certificate dismissed — decision to prosecute charges not unreasonable given all “relevant facts” — institution of proceedings not necessarily unreasonable where verdict unreasonable within Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1)

WS v R [2022] NSWCCA 77 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 293 — evidence complainant had prior sexual experience or had taken part in sexual activity — s 293(4)(c) exception — presence of semen, pregnancy, disease or injury attributable to alleged offence — miscarriage of justice caused because evidence complainant sexually assaulted by another man near date of offence not led at trial — probative value of evidence outweighed “distress, humiliation and embarrassment” complainant might suffer

R v BK [2022] NSWCCA 51 — Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 133(2) — historical child sexual assault charges — obligation to give reasons in judge-alone trial — respondent acquitted — judge erred in not explaining assessment of tendency evidence in judgment — s 133(2) requires trial judges to expose their reasoning process linking principles applied with findings of fact to justify findings and verdict — notwithstanding error, acquittal affirmed

R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1900, s 66EA — maintain unlawful sexual relationship with a child — fact finding on sentence after jury verdict of guilty — judge erred in determining respondent should be sentenced on basis of two least serious unlawful sexual acts and by making no factual findings — Chiro v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 425 does not apply — matter remitted for sentence

R v Delzotto [2022] NSWCCA 117 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16AAA, 16AAB — mandatory minimum penalties — possess child abuse material accessed by carriage service — judge erred by failing to approach minimum penalty in accordance with Bahar v R [2011] WASCA 249 — sentence below mandatory minimum not appropriate for offence in mid-range of seriousness — minimum penalty reserved for least serious offending

Young (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 111 — child sexual offences — delay — applicant sentenced as an adult for childhood offending — delay resulted in lost opportunities for Children’s Court sentencing, more lenient sentencing options, consideration of good character, and cycle of abuse to be addressed earlier — applicant’s significantly deprived background a “classic Bugmy case” — sentence manifestly excessive

PC v R [2022] NSWCCA 107 — Crimes Act 1900, ss 61H(2), 66C(2) — aggravated sexual intercourse with child aged 10–14 (under authority) — complainant was applicant’s daughter — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(2)(k) — aggravating factors — abuse of trust — judge did not err by taking aggravating factor of abuse of trust into account — abuse of authority not an element of offence — each case depends on relationship between offender and child, and circumstances of offending

R v Obbens [2022] NSWCCA 109 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act, s 61E(1A) (rep) — historical indecent assault of child under authority — respondent had already served 3 year sentence of imprisonment for like offending committed around same time — subsequent community correction order (CCO) not manifestly inadequate — judge correct to conclude imprisonment not appropriate — relevant question whether total sentencing outcome (previous imprisonment and CCO) encompassed whole criminality

Bisiker v R [2022] NSWCCA 110 — Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.24A — Crimes Act 1900, s 91H(2) — child pornography offences — Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, s 17(1) — failure to comply with reporting obligations — effective sentence not manifestly excessive — significant accumulation between State and federal offences appropriate — breach of reporting obligations involved distinct criminality — subsuming breach into subsequent offences would undermine objectives of child protection regime

R v PC [2022] NSWCCA 59 — Crown appeal — child sexual assault by stepfather — judge erred by treating registration under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 as a mitigating factor — community correction orders manifestly inadequate given repetition, persecutory nature and extended period of offending — observations on Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 15A(1)(a) — impact of restriction on publication of child victim’s name — s 15A prevents general deterrent effect of inter-familial child sex offence sentences

Darke v R [2022] NSWCCA 52 — Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2AAA) — Commonwealth child sex offender rehabilitation — judge erred by failing to refer to mandatory considerations in s 16A(2AAA) — court required to consider applicant’s rehabilitation, including in imposing conditions and fixing sentence length — applicant resentenced with recognisance release order and treatment/rehabilitation condition

Fenner v R [2022] NSWCCA 48 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (C(SP) Act), s 21A(3)(e), (f) — good character — Crimes Act 1900, s 73(2) — sexual intercourse with person under special care aged 17 — school teacher/student — judge erred by not taking into account applicant’s good character and lack of criminal history as mitigating factors — C(SP) Act, s 21A(5A) does not apply to s 73 offence — good character evidence entitled to some weight

R v Harrison; ex parte DPP (Cth) [2021] QCA 279 — Crown appeal — Criminal Code (Cth), ss 272.11(1), 272.19(1), 474.19(1) (rep) — Criminal Code (Qld), s 228D — sexual offences involving children outside Australia — total effective sentence failed to adequately reflect overall criminality which included exploiting a child’s economic vulnerabilities, and seeking to procure another child through the first child

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Consent Reforms) Act 2021 — amends Crimes Act 1900 — replaces s 61HE with new ss 61HF–61HK — s 61HI provides new definition of “consent” — s 61HJ provides circumstances where no consent — s 61HK updates circumstances where accused has knowledge of lack of consent — amends Criminal Procedure Act 1986 — new ss 292–292E provide for jury directions in relation to misconceptions about consent — commenced on proclamation on 1 June 2022 (s 2).

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2021 — amends Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, s 5 to update offences classified as a “serious sex offence” and “offence of a sexual nature” — amendments commenced on assent on 8 December 2021 (s 2):

Arvinthan v R [2022] NSWCCA 44 — Sentencing — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999, s 21A(2)(ea) — aggravating factors — judge erred by finding offence aggravated because it occurred in presence of child — double-counting to assess objective seriousness having regard to victim’s age and treating age as separate aggravating factor when child the victim of offence.

BB v R [2021] NSWCCA 283 — Crimes Act 1900, s 61M(2) (rep) — indecent assault of child under 10 years — applicant complainant’s father — sentence not manifestly excessive — judge found motivation for offences to “bond” with complainant — supposed absence of sexual motivation unlikely to affect assessment of objective seriousness — sexual character of conduct an inherent feature of offence.

R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1900, s 61I — pharmacist sexually assaulted customer under guise of medical examination — respondent’s status as registered health professional reflects trust placed in them and informs seriousness of breach of trust — Crimes Act, s 61HE — knowledge of non-consent not a separate aggravating factor but informs abuse of position of trust — non-parole period manifestly inadequate but appeal dismissed.

Allison (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 308 — Criminal Code (Cth), ss 474.19 (rep), 474.22, 474.22A — use carriage service to access and possess child pornography/child abuse material — application for permanent stay of “access offences” — judge did not err by refusing stay — offences overlap but are not duplicitous as they involve different elements and criminality — Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 applied — no double jeopardy or abuse of process.

Decision Restricted [2022] NSWCCA 2 — apprehended bias — Crimes Act 1900, s 61M(2) (rep) — aggravated indecent assault — Crown added s 61M(2) offence to indictment during retrial on trial judge’s urging — test for apprehension of bias satisfied and miscarriage of justice resulted — judge provided advice to Crown and conduct departed from role to adjudicate impartially — retrial ordered on original charges on indictment.

Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8 — Crimes Act, s 578A(2) — non-disclosure of complainants of prescribed sexual offences — applicant acquitted of Crimes Act 1900, s 61I offence (a prescribed sexual offence) but appealed conviction for other offences — appropriate that s 578A(2) still operates as appeal would identify complainant.

McIver v R [2020] NSWCCA 343 — apprehended bias — judge-alone trial — historical sexual assault where verdict based on complainant's credibility — at trial, judge recognised complainant as an attendant at shop she frequented 18 years earlier — judge ought to have recused herself — fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend unconscious predisposition in favour of complainant.

R v AB [2022] NSWCCA 3 — Crown appeal — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10(1)(b) — conditional release order (CRO) without conviction — numerous sexual offences against boy aged 14 — respondent victim of extensive and severe child sexual abuse and was on remand for 8½ months — s 10(1)(b) CRO not manifestly inadequate — unique case — despite serious offending, criminality did not deserve community denunciation by recording conviction.

R v JH [2021] NSWCCA 299 — Crown appeal — Crimes Act 1900, s 66A — sexual intercourse with child under 10 — Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 33(4)(b) — error to place offence carrying life imprisonment on Form 1 — matter remitted to District Court for sentence — inappropriate for CCA to resentence when that decision might inform sentencing outcome.

Orreal v The Queen [2021] HCA 44 — Appeals — child sex offences — evidence appellant and complainant had herpes irrelevant and prejudicial — trial judge erred by failing to direct jury to disregard that evidence — Qld Court of Appeal erred by finding no substantial miscarriage of justice and applying proviso — error to place weight on verdicts which may have been affected by impugned evidence — Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36 distinguished.

JH v R [2021] NSWCCA 32 — Directions — Crimes Act 1900, s 61J — aggravated sexual intercourse without consent — aggravating circumstance (s 61J(2)(f)) that complainant had “serious physical disability” (cerebral palsy and dystonia) — no error in judge's directions — "serious physical disability" is a question for jury and does not require explication — open on evidence for jury to find aggravating circumstance made out.

Modern Slavery Act 2018 — amends Crimes Act 1900 — amends s 91G to introduce aggravated form of offence of using child for production of child abuse material — creates new offences relating to administering and encouraging use of digital platforms for child abuse material and providing information about avoiding detection (ss 91HAA, 91HAB, 91HAC) — inserts s 93AC relating to child forced marriages — commenced on 1 January 2022 (s 2).

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2021 — amends Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, s 5 to update offences classified as a “serious sex offence” and “offence of a sexual nature” — commenced on assent on 8 December 2021 (s 2, GG No 649 of 17 December 2021).

Greenaway v R [2021] NSWCCA 253 — where it was found there was no error by permitting evidence of offences in two institutions as cross-admissible as sexual tendency evidence under s 97 Evidence Act 1995. The case concerned historical sexual offences against multiple child complainants. There was no requirement for the judge to direct the jury on the standard of proof necessary for uncharged acts used as tendency evidence. The principle in R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56 at [86] applies where there are multiple complainants.

O’Hearn (formerly DAO (No 4)) v R [2021] NSWCCA 103 — where there was no miscarriage of justice by not admitting the witness’s convictions. The credibility rule exception in s 106 of the Evidence Act is directed at denial of convictions, not offending conduct. The jury was aware the witness was convicted of like offences involving 27 victims. Evidence of the witness’s convictions for sexual abuse of two further victims would not significantly impact the witness’s credibility or verdict.

Denton v R [2020] NSWCCA 341 — where a GP’s evidence concluding there was an abnormality on applicant’s penis was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial for sexual offences. The Crown relied on the complainant’s drawing depicting an “abnormal skin flap” on the applicant’s penis. The GP did not have the relevant specialised knowledge under s 76 of the Evidence Act. The conviction was quashed.

Xerri v R [2021] NSWCCA 268 — where, in a trial an offence of maintain unlawful sexual relationship with a child under s 66EA(1) Crimes Act 1900 committed before the repeal of the predecessor offence, the new s 66EA offence, with a higher maximum penalty, was held to apply. The replaced s 66EA created a new offence. The clear legislative intent was that the new offence would operate retrospectively. The new s 66EA is not subject to s 19 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The judge was correct to sentence on the basis the maximum penalty was life imprisonment.

Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220 — where it was found the judge did not err in the application of the totality principle where the offender committed repeated physical and sexual violence against his domestic partner while the partner was detained. The offences were contrary to ss 61I, 61J(1), and 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act. It was sufficient to reference the need for the overall sentence to reflect the totality of the criminality. No particular formula of words was required.

Young (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 163 — where it was held the sentencing judge wrongly took into account standard non-parole periods that were not applicable. On finding error, the appellate court re-exercises the sentencing discretion afresh under s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 and in doing so may adopt, but is not bound by, the sentencing judge's findings. Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601 applied.

Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36 — where it was found there was no substantial miscarriage of justice in an appeal arising from the appellant’s conviction for sexual offences under s 61I Crimes Act 1900. The High Court unanimously held that there was prejudicial cross-examination of the appellant by the Crown Prosecutor on matters of credibility. However, a majority of the court held that the proviso in s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 applied because no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. The Court of Criminal Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal. The appellate court must consider the impact of the error on particular proceedings when determining whether to apply the proviso.

Hamilton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] HCA 33 — where the judge did not err by not giving an anti-tendency direction to the jury where it was not sought at trial. The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against three of his five children. The counts were tried together. The appellant alleged the complainants’ evidence was inconsistent and had been concocted. The majority of the High Court held the Court of Criminal Appeal was correct to conclude there was no miscarriage. The risk of the jury engaging in tendency reasoning was remote and the issue of credibility as between the appellant on one hand and complainants and their mother on the other, was overwhelmingly likely to be decisive of guilt.

Gage v R [2021] NSWCCA 222 — where it was held the judge should have given a specific redirection on consent even though the summing up was unimpeachable. The applicant sought to appeal his conviction for six counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The jury note during deliberations appeared to reverse the onus of proof for consent. A re-trial was ordered.

Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212 — where the judge did not err by failing to warn the jury not to give greater or lesser weight to complaint evidence given by audio-visual link in directions at the time the complainant’s evidence was given. The judge gave the warning during her opening and in her summing up. While ss 306X and 306ZI of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 require such a warning, the timing of the warning is a discretionary decision to be made in the context of the particular trial issues.

Kassab (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 46 — where it was found there was no error in refusing to exclude evidence under s 137 Evidence Act 1995. It was open to the judge to find one of the victims had not undergone hypnotherapy before making her statement and to admit her evidence despite her undergoing EMDR therapy. While there have been concerns raised about the impact of hypnosis or EMDR treatment on the evidence of witnesses, they have arisen where hypnosis or EMDR has been used to revive memory. None of the cases relied on concern a case like this where the EMDR is undergone after the police statements have been made and there is no evidence of any apparent change to the witness’s recollection after the treatment.

GP (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 180 — where, in relation to the s 66EA Crimes Act offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child, it was held the judge erred by finding the offending was aggravated because of repeated acts of ejaculation. It is not permissible to make an adverse finding of fact on sentence unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt and, as there was no evidence ejaculation occurred on more than one occasion, the judge’s remark was an overstatement.

McGovern aka Lanesbury v R [2021] NSWCCA 176 — where the Crown erroneously provided a sentence summary document to the sentencing judge which indicated the offences were committed during the currency of the bond. In circumstances where errors of the kind identified in this case are becoming increasingly common, the NSWCCA found it appropriate to reiterate there is a fundamental obligation upon counsel appearing in sentence proceedings to assist the sentencing judge.

Kiss v R [2021] NSWCCA 158 — where the court stated there is no principle that a sexual assault committed in the context of a prior or existing relationship is, for that reason alone, different from (and less serious than) a sexual assault committed by a stranger.

DPP (NSW) v Wright and the Local Court of NSW [2021] NSWSC 1086 — where it was held that a magistrate had erred in relation to s 61HE Crimes Act by suggesting that the victim was required to communicate lack of consent, by failing to correctly apply recklessness and by failing to consider any steps the defendant took to ascertain consent.

Croft v R [2021] NSWCCA 146 — where it was found that the judge did not err in allowing rebuttal evidence by the Crown in reply “directed to an issue the proof of which did not lie on the prosecution… [and that] the prosecution had not anticipated...” The evidence could not have been called by the Crown, was not rebuttal of good character evidence and the defence painted an arguably false picture of the appellant.

Stephens v R [2021] NSWCCA 152 — where in relation to historical child sex offences, the court found allowing the trial to proceed on the basis that s 80AF, Crimes Act applied did not offend the principles concerning retrospectivity of legislation. A statute will not be given retrospective operation where to do so would affect an existing right or obligation unless the statute, expressly or by necessary implication, so demands. However, statutes affecting “mere matters of procedure” are excepted from that presumption and s 80AF is procedural.

Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 124 — where it was found that the Crown impermissibly addressed the jury on the basis that the appellant’s answers in recorded conversations were admissions and the judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to how those answers could be used.

JJP v R [2021] SASCA 53 — where in a trial for maintain unlawful sexual relationship with child (similar to Crimes Act, s 66EA(1)) the judge erred in his articulation of the elements of the offence. In NSW, s 66EA(13) (which has no direct counterpart in the SA provision) permits a jury that is not satisfied an offence against s 66EA(1) has been proved, but is satisfied the accused committed an unlawful sexual act, to find the accused guilty of that unlawful sexual act.

Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 51 — Recent Law 25/4/2021

Culbert v R [2021] NSWCCA 38 — Recent Law 5/5/2021

Hillman v R [2021] NSWCCA 43 — Recent Law 26/4/2021

Aryal v R [2021] NSWCCA 2 — Recent Law 19/4/2021

Gale v R [2021] NSWCCA 16 — Recent Law 8/3/2021

Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 51 — Recent Law 25/4/2021

Beattie v R [2020] NSWCCA 334 — Recent Law 30/4/2021

P Mizzi and R A Hulme, “Reforming the admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence in criminal trials”, (2020) 32 JOB 113

N Broadbent and D Buchanan, “Tendency evidence in 2020”, paper presented at the Legal Aid NSW Conference, November 2020, Sydney.

A Cossins and J Goodman-Delahunty, “The application of the Uniform Evidence Law to delay in child sexual assault trials” in A Roberts and J Gans (eds), Critical perspectives on the Uniform Evidence Law, The Federation Press, 2017. This chapter looks at how the Uniform Evidence Law (UEL) operates in relation to child sexual assault.

J Cashmore and R Shackel, The long-term effects of child sexual abuse, CFCA Paper No. 11, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013. This paper is a useful summary of recent Australian and international research on long-term effects of child sexual abuse, including the link between the abuse and adverse mental health consequences.

L Malloy, S Brubacher and M Lamb, “‘Because she’s one who listens’: children discuss disclosure recipients in forensic interviews” (2013) 18(4) Child Maltreatment 245. This study examined investigative interviews using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol with 204, with five- to thirteen-year-old suspected victims of child sexual abuse.

R McElvaney and M Culhane, “A retrospective analysis of children’s assessment reports: what helps children tell?” (2017) 26(2) Child Abuse Review 103. In this study, retrospective analysis of children’s file data was evaluated as a method of gathering information about children’s experiences of informal disclosure of child sexual abuse.

S Morrison, C Bruce and S Wilson, “Children’s disclosure of sexual abuse: a systematic review of qualitative research exploring barriers and facilitators” (2018) 27(2) Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 176. This paper is a systematic review of the qualitative evidence of factors relating to children’s decisions to disclose experiences of sexual abuse, given the long-term impacts of such abuse and the access to support and protection that disclosure makes possible.

R McElvaney, “Disclosure of child sexual abuse: delays, non-disclosure and partial disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice” (2015) 24(3) Child Abuse Online Review 159. This review looks at delays in disclosing, non-disclosure, and partial disclosure of child sexual abuse.

N Kellogg, W Koek and S Nienow, “Factors that prevent, prompt, and delay disclosures in female victims of child sexual abuse” (2020) 101 Child Abuse & Neglect e104360. This study looks at factors that prevent, prompt and delay disclosure of child sexual abuse in patients presenting for medical evaluations of sexual abuse or assault, and identifies differences in disclosure tendencies among female pre-adolescents and adolescents.

C Lemaigre, E Taylor and C Gittoes, “Barriers and facilitators to disclosing sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review” (2017) 70 Child Abuse & Neglect 39. This paper covers a systematic review of research relating to child and adolescent disclosures of sexual abuse found a range of factors in the empirical studies.

J Quas and G Goodman, “Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims” (2012) 18(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 392. This paper reviews research on the links between child victims’ involvement in criminal prosecutions and subsequent outcomes.

J Goodman-Delahunty, N Martschuk and A Cossins, “What Australian jurors know and do not know about evidence of child sexual abuse” (2017) 41 Crim LJ 86. Non-empanelled jurors responded to a series of brief statements about forensically relevant issues common to many child sexual abuse cases.

J Goodman-Delahunty, N Martschuk and A Cossins, “Validation of the Child Sexual Abuse Knowledge Questionnaire” (2017) 23(4) Psychology, Crime & Law 391. A validation study of the Child Sexual Abuse Knowledge Questionnaire, which contains items derived from empirical findings on common misconceptions, was conducted on a sample of non-empanelled jurors.

N Westera et al, “Courtroom questioning of child sexual abuse complainants: views of Australian criminal justice professionals” (2019) 7(1) Salus Journal 20. This study interviewed judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and witness assistance officers from four Australian jurisdictions about the questioning of children in the courtroom.

B Earhart et al, “Judges’ delivery of ground rules to child witnesses in Australian courts” (2017) 74 Child Abuse & Neglect 62. This paper examines the use of ground rules directions delivered in court to 57 child complainants by 24 presiding judges in 52 trials held in three jurisdictions.

M Powell et al, An evaluation of how evidence is elicited from complainants of child sexual abuse, Research Report, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2016. This study examined whether, and to what extent, judges and lawyers are intervening during complainant questioning through analysing court transcripts.

J Cashmore, A Taylor and P Parkinson, “Fourteen-year trends in the criminal justice response to child sexual abuse reports in NSW” (2020) 25(1) Child Maltreatment 85. This article examines trends in criminal justice responses by analysing police and court administrative data in NSW over a 14-year period. It compares prosecution of child sexual offences reported when the complainant is a child with prosecutions reported when the complainant is an adult. It provides a comprehensive explanation of attrition.

R Shackel, “Victim impact statements in child sexual assault cases: a restorative role or restrained rhetoric?” (2011) 34(1) UNSW Law Journal 211. This article looks at the use of victim impact statements in sentencing child sexual assault offenders, given the growing recognition of their communicative, therapeutic and other social benefits.

D Kenny, “The social dynamics and impacts of institutional child sexual abuse” (2017) 29 JOB 67. This article provides a summary of the background to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

J Goodman-Delahunty, N Martschuk and M Nolan, “Memory science in the Pell appeals: impossibility, timing, inconsistencies” (2020) 44 Crim LJ 232. This study examines the appeals from the conviction of Cardinal Pell in terms of memory.

M Powell and B Earhart, “Principles to enhance communication with child witnesses“ (2018) 30 JOB 85. This article describes practical strategies for communicating with children and other vulnerable witnesses engaged in the legal system.

J Goodman-Delahunty, M Nolan and E van Gijn Grosvenor, Empirical guidance on the effects of child sexual abuse on memory and complainants’ evidence, Report for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2017. This paper discusses best-practice features of interviews to enhance memory, including eliciting a full account of events, the use of multiple interviews, eliciting reliable information, interview aids, and accommodating individual differences.

N Westera et al, “Special measures in child sexual abuse cases: views of Australian criminal justice professionals” (2020) 32(2) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 224. This study looked at criminal justice professionals’ views on how well special measures for child complainants of sexual abuse work in practice.

R Zajac, N Westera and A Kaladelfos, “The ‘good old days’ of courtroom questioning: changes in the format of child cross-examination questions over 60 years” (2018) 23(2)
Child Maltreatment 186. This article compares how Australian child sexual abuse complainants were cross-examined in the 1950s with how these complainants are cross-examined now.

R Zajac, S O’Neill and H Hayne, “Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination” (2012) 32 Developmental Review 181. This paper discusses how children respond to cross-examination questions and the effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s reports.

G Wong, “Forensic medical evaluation of children who present with suspected sexual abuse: how do we know what we know?” (2019) 55(12) Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
1492. This article provides updates on medical evidence gathered from child sexual abuse complainants, the current understanding of how to interpret genital findings in children and remaining gaps in knowledge.

A Cossins et al, “The role of photographic and video documentation in the investigation and prosecution of child sexual assault” (2016) 23 JLM 925. This paper discusses the use of colposcopy to document ano-genital examination.

W Silva et al, “Factors associated with child sexual abuse confirmation at forensic examinations” (2018) 23(2) Ciênda & Saúde Coletiva 599. This Brazilian study discusses the identification of potential factors associated with finding evidence of child sexual abuse in forensic examinations.

G Edmond et al, “How to cross-examine forensic scientists: a guide for lawyers” (2014) 39 Aust Bar Rev 174. This article uses a series of examples to help lawyers explore the probative value of forensic science evidence on the voir dire and at trial.

G Edmond et al, “Model forensic science” (2016) 48(5) Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 496. This article presents, in accessible form, the dangers with prosecution expert evidence in criminal trials, revealed in recent US and UK government reports.

D Hamer and G Edmond, “Forensic science evidence, wrongful convictions and adversarial process” (2019) 38(2) University of Queensland Law Journal 185. This article highlights risks of wrongful conviction raised by reliance on prosecution forensic evidence and magnified by the shortcomings of the adversarial process. It suggests that courts should take a more interventionist approach to such evidence.

J Goodman-Delahunty and N Martchuk, “Mock jury and juror responses to uncharged acts of sexual misconduct: advances in the assessment of unfair prejudice” (2020) 228(3) Zeitschrift für Psychologie 199. This experimental study looks at jury responses to relationship evidence in the form of uncharged sexual acts by the same perpetrator against the victim.

J Goodman-Delahunty, A Cossins and N Martschuk, Jury reasoning in separate and joint trials of institutional child sexual abuse: an empirical study, Report for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2016. This study investigates the extent to which joint trials with cross-admissible tendency evidence infringe defendants’ rights. It also analyses whether jury reason and decisions in joint trials result in unfair prejudice to defendants.

J Goodman-Delahunty et al, “Methods to evaluate justice practices in eliciting evidence from complainants of child sexual abuse” (2017) 12 Newcastle Law Review 42. This article evaluates how scientific methods are used and how complainants are questioned about child sexual abuse, based on 17 studies commissioned by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

A Pichler et al, “Inconsistencies in complainants’ accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination” (2020) Psychology, Crime & Law 1. In this study of cross-examination of 73 complainants in child sex abuse trials, inconsistencies were found to have been raised in relation to 94.5% of complainants.

B Neild, “Jury directions in sexual assault trials: Murray/Ewen, significant forensic disadvantage and delay in complaint”, a paper presented at the Public Defenders Criminal Law Conference, 18 March 2017, Sydney. This paper examines three key directions, each of which has been the subject of important case law or legislative reform, being the Murray/Ewen direction, the significant forensic disadvantage direction (s 165B of the Evidence Act 1995) and the delay in complaint direction (s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986). Consideration is also given to the overall role of directions in sexual assault trials and the need to shape directions in order to meet the specific requirements of justice in the case in which they are to be given.

D Hamer, “Trying delays: forensic disadvantage in child sexual assault trials" (2010) 9 Criminal Law Review 671. This article considers the possible consequences of delayed prosecutions for child sexual assault offences, particularly the forensic disadvantages faced by defendants. It then examines, with reference to Australian and UK law, the scope for delay to cause evidence to be lost, whether the loss must be proven, whether regard should be had to lost peripheral evidence and whether existing evidence may compensate for what is lost. The article argues for a balanced response to lost evidence with no allowances being made in a defendant's favour, and for convictions to be based upon the strength of the prosecution evidence.

E Lee, J Goodman-Delahunty, M Fraser, M Powell and N Westera, “Special measures in child sexual abuse trials: criminal justice practitioners’ experiences and views” (2018) 18(2) QUT Law Review — Special issue: Contemporary legal and ethical challenges in children’s health: reproduction, technology, capacity, medicine and violence 1. Special measures have been implemented across the globe to improve evidence procedures in child sexual assault trials. This study explored the day-to-day experiences and views on their use by five groups of Australian criminal justice practitioners (N =335): judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witness assistance officers. Most practitioners reported routine use of pre-recorded police interviews and CCTV cross-examination of child complainants, but rare use with vulnerable adults. Despite persistent technical difficulties and lengthy waiting times for witnesses, high consensus emerged that special measures enhanced trial fairness and jury understanding. The perceived impact of special measures on conviction rates diverged widely. Defence lawyers disputed that this evidence was as reliable as in-person testimony. All practitioner groups endorsed expanded use of expert witness evidence and witness intermediaries. Ongoing professional development in all practitioner groups will further enhance justice outcomes for victims of child sexual abuse.

S Brubacher, N Hodgson, J Goodman-Delahunty, M Powell and N Westera, “Children’s competence to testify in Australian courts: implementing the Royal Commission recommendation” (2019) 42(4) UNSW Law Journal 1386. In 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended reforms to the law of competence of child witnesses. This article examines Australian judges’ practices in assessing children’s competence to give sworn evidence. Trial transcripts from 56 victims revealed that 64% were posed competence questions, with fewer to older children. The most frequent manner of posing such questions was to ask children to evaluate the morality of truths and lies. Most questions were yes/no format, and children nearly always answered these satisfactorily. When questions were ‘wh-’ format, children provided a satisfactory response only 51% of the time. Only nine children testified unsworn, and they were asked more than twice as many competence questions as sworn children. Competence inquiries have been challenged for underestimating children’s abilities, and because responses to questions about truths and lies are not predictive of behaviour. This article discusses how reforms could be implemented.

P Cooper and M Mattison, “Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence: an international comparison of three versions of the English intermediary model” (2017) 21(4) The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 351. Since 2004, witness intermediaries have been utilised across the justice system in England and Wales. Two witness intermediary schemes based on the English model have also been introduced in Northern Ireland (2013), and more recently, in New South Wales, Australia (2016). The purpose of the intermediary in these jurisdictions is to facilitate the questioning of vulnerable witnesses, but there are clear differences in the application of the role. This paper presents the first comparative review of the three related intermediary models, and highlights the pressing need for further research into the efficacy and development of the role in practice.

J Cashmore and R Shackel, “Evaluation of the child sexual offence evidence pilot: final outcome evaluation report”, NSW Department of Justice. This is the final report of the evaluation of the Child Sexual Offence Evidence Pilot in NSW. It outlines the findings of the outcome evaluation and presents an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the special measures introduced by the Pilot and recommendations for possible improvements to, and future development of those measures, related processes, and implications for a wider and sustainable roll out. Some key challenges and risks for expansion of the Pilot are identified.

Associate Professor Jacqueline Horan and Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty, “Expert evidence to counteract jury misconceptions about consent in sexual assault cases: failures and lessons learned” (2020) 43(2) UNSW Law Journal 707. This century has seen dramatic changes in the way in which sexual offences, particularly against children, are prosecuted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These jurisdictions have acknowledged the potential of myths and misconceptions about how a victim will behave, both during and after a sexual assault, to exert an undue influence on jurors. Expert evidence to educate jurors about common rape myths that apply to issues of consent has been used to redress this issue. However, such expert evidence poses significant challenges for the lawyers and experts. This article explores the effectiveness of educative expert evidence through analysis of an illustrative contemporary Australian child sexual assault case where the authors interviewed some of the jurors and other trial participants about their perceptions of the expert evidence. Practical suggestions to improve educative expert evidence are identified and explained.

S Bouveng, “Bauer and McPhillamy — update on admissibility and use of tendency evidence in child sexual assault matters”, conference paper presented at the Public Defenders Conference, 16 March 2019, Sydney. The law regarding the admissibility and use of tendency evidence has again “evolved” since the audience at the 2018 conference was updated by his Honour Judge Gartelmann SC. This paper reviewed High Court developments in the admissibility of tendency evidence in 2018, with a focus on its use in child sexual assault matters.

Schedule 2 – Possession of child-like sex dolls

Schedule 3 – Possession or control of child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service

Schedule 4 – Persistent sexual abuse of child outside Australia

Schedule 5 – Forced marriage

Schedule 6 – Restricted defence of marriage for child sex offences

Schedule 7 – Reconstitutes definition of child abuse material

Table 1 in [1-000] Sexual offences involving child victims (to include the new maximum penalty for Crimes Act 1900, s 66A offences (life), and the new standard non-parole periods for various child sex offences: Crimes Act 1900, ss 66B, 66C(1), (2), (4), 66EB(2), (2A), (3), 91D(1), 91E(1), 91G(1)).

[1-020] Sexual offences — alternative verdicts to reflect the omission of s 66E(2) and the insertion of the new s 66A.

[6-010] Legislation: Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2014 (amends Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 130A; pre-trial orders and orders made during trial on admissibility of evidence binding on subsequent trial judge); Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Statutory Review) Act 2014 (amends Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000; expands classes of registrable offences; various other amendments); Bail Amendment Act 2014 — amends Bail Act 2013 (requires bail for certain serious offences be refused unless accused shows cause why detention not justified; additional matters in applying unacceptable risk test).

[6-020] Evidence: Taleb v R [2015] NSWCCA 105 (admissibility of evidence relating to sexual experience; “sexual intercourse so alleged” excludes issues of consent: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 293(4)(c); exception in s 293(4)(a) not applicable); WC v R [2015] NSWCCA 52 (admissibility under Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 306I; “not admissible” under Evidence Act 1995, ss 59, means “not admissible over objection”); Pasoski v R [2014] NSWCCA 309 (interaction between s 306I and Evidence Act 1995; admissibility of relationship evidence); JWM v R [2014] NSWCCA 248 (admissibility of evidence relating to sexual experience: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 293(4)(a); sexual assault communications privilege; no error in lack of explicit tendency warning about “pretext” evidence).

[6-025] Procedure: AF v R [2015] NSWCCA 35 (no right of appeal against vulnerable person ruling: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 306M, 306S(1)(a); Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F); DPP (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83 (show cause and acceptable risk tests; two tests not to be conflated: Bail Act 2013, ss 16A, 19; practice of referring bail applications to the Court of Appeal should cease); JG v R [2014] NSWCCA 138 (ambiguity as to whether pre-trial rulings on evidence within scope of Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 130A(3); credibility a jury matter and not relevant to assessment of probative value of evidence; tendency and coincidence evidence: Evidence Act 1995, ss 97, 98, 101).

[6-030]. Directions: KA v R [2015] NSWCCA 111 (no error in joint criminal enterprise directions; no Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 direction required); Ewen v R [2015] NSWCCA 117 (effect of Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 294AA, on R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 direction; directions in sexual assault cases which will not contravene s 294AA); ML v R [2015] NSWCCA 27 (no error in refusing warning under Evidence Act 1995, s 165A(2), based on child complainant’s psychological issues; warning regarding forensic disadvantage not required); Budrodeen v R [2014] NSWCCA 332 (erroneous written directions in form of question trail).

[6-035] Sentencing: AH v R [2015] NSWCCA 51 (error in finding applicant’s good character facilitated commission of sexual offences; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(5A), inapplicable); KAB v R [2015] NSWCCA 55 (no denial of procedural fairness where finding that sexual offence aggravated by risk of pregnancy although factor not subject of Crown submissions or agreed facts); LJS v R [2015] NSWCCA 47 (sentencing for historical child sexual offences); Ahmu v R [2014] NSWCCA 312 (error in assessment of objective seriousness of sexual offences committed in domestic violence context); R v RM [2015] NSWCCA 4 (no power to impose aggregate suspended sentence; error in quantifying discount for remorse: Crimes Act 1900, ss 66A, 66B; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 12, 53A); JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 (summary of relevant principles and issues relating to imposition and appellate review of aggregate sentences: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 53A, 54B); MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183 (appeal against severity of sentence for child sexual assault: Crimes Act 1900, s 66A); RJB v R [2015] NSWCCA 93 (objective seriousness and accumulation; error in imposition of fixed terms: Crimes Act 1900, s 66A).

[6-040] Appeals: AF v R [2015] NSWCCA 35 (no right of appeal against vulnerable person ruling: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 306M, 306S(1)(a); Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F); Mansaray v R [2015] NSWCCA 40 (judge’s opinion of jury’s verdict and complainant’s evidence irrelevant to conviction appeal: Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1), s 11); R v RM [2015] NSWCCA 4 (court declined to intervene in exercise of residual discretion); TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 (error in refusal by judge to permanently stay sexual assault proceedings).

[6-010] Legislation: Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (extends statutory definition of consent to attempted sexual assault offences: Crimes Act 1900, s 61HA; written record required of indicative sentences when s 53A aggregate sentence imposed).

[6-015] Offences: NW v R [2014] NSWCCA 217 (errors in charges for pornography offences where provisions had been amended: Crimes Act 1900, ss 91FB, 91G(1)(a), 91G(3)(rep), 91H(2)).

[6-020] Evidence: R v MM [2014] NSWCCA 144 (admissibility of context evidence of other offences and of relationship between accused and his sister in incest case); Saoud v R [2014] NSWCCA 136 (admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence as to alleged sexual offences committed against two complainants in similar circumstances: Evidence Act 1995, ss 97, 98, 101).

[6-030] Directions: W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110 (contention that requirement to give reliability warning not applicable to judge-alone trials rejected: Evidence Act 1995, s 165); Jarrett v R [2014] NSWCCA 140 (warning about delay in complaint in sexual offence proceedings: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 294(2)(c)).

[6-035] Sentencing: TU v R [2014] NSWCCA 155 (appeal against severity of sentence for child sexual assault: Crimes Act 1900, s 66A); Ingham v R [2014] NSWCCA 123 (resentencing in child sexual assault case where Muldrock ((2011) 244 CLR 120) error conceded: Crimes Act 1900, ss 66A, 66B, 61M ); R v RD [2014] NSWCCA 103 (Crown appeal against sentence for child sexual assault where victim’s pregnancy, age and vulnerability rendered offences extremely serious: Crimes Act 1900, s 66C).

[6-040] Appeals: TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 (appeal against refusal to permanently stay sexual assault proceedings where alleged offences 40 years old: Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F); Carlton v R [2014] NSWCCA 14 (referral under Pt 7 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 circumvents need for leave to appeal and extension of time).

revisions to Trial procedure at [1-100]ff to include amendments made as a consequence of the enactment of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act 2013 (Cth). A cross-reference has been added at [1-155] to the remote witness facilities operational guidelines reproduced in the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book. These guidelines have been reissued following a review conducted by the NSW Department of Police and Justice. References have also been added to [1-110] (Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086) and [1-170] (NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25; KS v Veitch (No 2) (2012) 84 NSWLR 172; I Nash, “Sexual assault communications privilege”, paper presented at Public Defenders Conference, February 2014, Sydney).

minor amendments to Checklist of jury directions at [3-080] and Sentencing at [5-000] to include update cross-references to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and the Sentencing Bench Book.

additions to Recent sexual assault law at [6-000] to include references to and links to recent law items posted on JIRS:

revisions to Trial procedure at [1-100] to include amendments made to the definitions of “sexual offence witness” and “personal assault offence” in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 294D and 306M(1) respectively. The court’s jurisdiction under s 130 of the Criminal Procedure Act following the decision in KS v Veitch (2012) 300 ALR 181 has also been clarified at [1-105].

revisions to Pre-trial case management at [2-000] to include a reference to the new District Court Practice Note 9 (effective 1 September 2013)

revisions to Recent sexual assault law at [6-000] to include references and links to recent law items posted on JIRS:

the new District Court Criminal Practice Note 9 has been included at [10-240].

twenty-four historical and current offences have been added to Table 1: Sexual offences involving child victims in the Offences chapter at [1-000], including kidnapping offences. For each offence, Table 1:

revisions to Recent sexual assault law to include references and links to recent law items posted on JIRS:

revisions to Recent sexual assault law to include references and links to recent law items posted on JIRS:

a reference and link to M Ierace, “Judge-alone trials” 24(9) JOB 73 at [1-110]

a reference and link to P Johnson “Admitting evidence of uncharged sexual acts in sexual assault proceedings” (2010) 22(10) JOB 79 at [3-080] and [4-180]

a reference and link to Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Special Bulletin 30 (relationship evidence in sexual assault cases) and Special Bulletin 26 (BBH v The Queen [2012] HCA 9: Evidence in child sexual assault cases).

reference to ss 53A, 66, 76(b), 77(1)(a), 78(6) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and s 61U Crimes Act 1900 at [5-140].

contains current and historical NSW and Commonwealth sexual offences, including information about the period of operation of each offence

sets out the maximum penalties for offences where the offences are dealt with on indictment

identifies offences which attract a standard non-parole period (SNPP) under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Pt 4, Div 1A

specifies whether a particular offence is a “prescribed sexual offence” for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Act, s 3, or a “serious children’s indictable offence” for the purposes of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 3

provides online access (as available) to: amending Acts which commence, repeal or amend particular offences; sentencing statistics for each offence; NSWCCA case summaries for each offence; advance notes prepared by the ODPP (NSW); NSWCCA table of SNPP appeals; commentary in the Sentencing Bench Book, suggested directions and commentary in the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, and Judicial Commission research publications, including Sentencing Trends & Issues and Research Monographs; relevant articles in other Judicial Commission publications, including the Judicial Officers’ Bulletin and The Judicial Review.

the recent law material is now classified by subject as follows: legislation; case law relating to offences, evidence, directions, sentencing and appeals; and other publications of interest

links are provided to the full text of all recent law items posted.

a revised Recent Law section

references and links to two articles by Associate Professor Rita Shackel “How child victims respond to perpetrators of sexual abuse” and “Understanding children’s medium for disclosing sexual abuse — a tool for overcoming potential misconceptions in the courtroom”.