Citation: R v Allan Cameron [2020] NSWDC 444
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 May 2020
Judge: Gartelmann SC DCJ
Background
The accused, a photographer, faced an indictment of 26 counts arising from alleged conduct during photo sessions with female models. Eleven complainants gave evidence. The alleged offences spanned indecent assault, sexual assault (sexual intercourse without consent), and one count of procuring a person for prostitution.
The accused elected a judge-alone trial, and the Crown agreed to that election. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. At the close of the Crown case, the accused was found not guilty on two counts (Counts 6 and 22), leaving 24 counts for determination in this judgment.
The Crown's case rested substantially on the complainants' accounts of what occurred during photo sessions, supported by complaint evidence, photographic evidence, and tendency evidence drawn from the similarities across the complainants' accounts.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown proved the elements of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt across the relevant counts (Counts 1 to 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 21, 23, 25 and 26)
- Whether the Crown proved the elements of sexual intercourse without consent beyond reasonable doubt across the relevant counts (Counts 9 to 11, 13, 14, 17 and 24)
- Whether the Crown proved the single count of procuring a person not being a prostitute for the purposes of prostitution (Count 8)
- Whether tendency evidence, drawn from similarities across multiple complainants' accounts, was established and could be used in reasoning across counts
- Whether joint use of evidence on paired counts was appropriate, given the Crown's reliance on coincidence reasoning for certain pairs of complainants
- How to assess the reliability and credibility of multiple complainants, including where accounts differed in details
Decision
Gartelmann SC DCJ set out detailed directions at the outset, applying the criminal standard of proof throughout. The judgment emphasised that verdicts must not be the product of compromise: each count required independent proof, and a reasonable doubt arising from a complainant's unreliability on one count was required to be carried across to other counts involving her evidence.
The court addressed the Crown's tendency evidence case, which alleged the accused had two paired tendencies: a desire to engage in sexual contact with female models during photo sessions, and a desire to exploit models for his own sexual gratification during those sessions. The court considered whether similarities between complainants' accounts were sufficiently cogent to amount to tendency evidence, and whether they crossed the threshold of being unlikely to be coincidence.
The Crown also relied on coincidence reasoning for three specific pairs of counts, arguing that the similarities between paired complainants' accounts (for example, the similar circumstances in which the accused allegedly exposed himself to NS and EP, or pulled NW and TM onto his lap) showed a shared state of mind and conduct unlikely to be mere coincidence. The court assessed each pair to determine whether the requisite similarity threshold was reached, and whether each individual complainant's evidence was itself reliable before any count could be proven.
The full reasoning and individual verdicts on each remaining count are addressed in the body of the judgment. The text provided does not reproduce the individual findings on each count in full, but the structured directions make clear that acquittals and convictions were each determined by reference to the evidence specific to each complainant and count.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- In a judge-alone trial involving multiple complainants and overlapping tendency and coincidence evidence, each count must be proven independently; tendency or coincidence reasoning cannot substitute for direct evidence on a particular count.
- Tendency evidence requires that the similarities between complainants' accounts are sufficiently cogent to make coincidence an unlikely explanation, and even then the individual complainant's evidence must independently be found reliable before a guilty verdict can follow.
- The District Court confirmed that delay in complaint does not of itself demonstrate unreliability in sexual offence cases, and that differences in accounts are common whether complainants are truthful or not.
- A conviction for procuring a person for prostitution (under the Crimes Act 1900) does not require the procured person to have been unwilling; consent is not an element of that offence.
- Where an accused and a single complainant were alone together during the alleged offending, the Crown's case rises or falls on the reliability of that complainant's evidence; the exercise is not simply a choice between two conflicting accounts, and a reasonable doubt arising from the accused's evidence requires acquittal.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): provisions relating to indecent assault, sexual intercourse without consent, and procuring for prostitution
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment as extracted.