AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 21 March 2025

R v Ladmore

[2025] NSWDC 93

Sexual offences

Citation: R v Ladmore [2025] NSWDC 93
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 March 2025
Judge: Judge Haesler SC

Background

The accused, a family friend and neighbour, faced trial on 12 counts (including two alternates) arising from alleged sexual offending against a child, referred to in the judgment by the pseudonym "Isla," over a period commencing when she was eight years old. The prosecution alleged the accused cultivated Isla's trust, gave her free access to his home, exposed her to pornography and sex toys, provided her with gifts and financial benefits, and on multiple occasions sexually touched, assaulted, and had sexual intercourse with her. The offending came to light in early 2023 when Isla, then aged 10, told school friends about a suitcase containing sex toys at the accused's home; when her mother followed up, Isla disclosed the broader abuse.

A police investigation followed, including the execution of crime scene warrants at the accused's home. Items seized and images recovered from his mobile phone were said to lend support to Isla's allegations. The accused was committed for trial to the District Court at Bega, where he denied every allegation.

The children's evidence was pre-recorded before the main trial, as required under Part 5, Division 1A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). The prosecution case ran for four days, after which the accused gave evidence. Submissions concluded on 17 March 2025, and judgment was delivered on 21 March 2025.

  • Whether the accused committed contact sexual offences against Isla, including sexual touching, incitement to sexual touching, assault with intent to have sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse with a child under 14 in circumstances of aggravation
  • Whether the accused engaged in grooming conduct under s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) with the intent to procure Isla for unlawful sexual activity
  • Whether the accused used Isla for the production of child abuse material and/or produced child abuse material, contrary to ss 91G and 91H of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  • Whether the accused possessed child abuse material on 21 April 2023
  • Whether, in a judge-alone trial, the prosecution had established each element of each count beyond reasonable doubt
  • How the court should approach tendency evidence, the credibility of child complainants, expert opinion from Cellebrite phone analysis, and circumstantial evidence

Decision

Judge Haesler SC sat as the trial judge alone, the accused having elected for a judge-alone trial under s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The Director of Public Prosecutions had not consented to this mode of trial, but leave was granted following a separate ruling. As required in a judge-alone trial, the judgment sets out the court's reasoning in full, including applicable legal principles, necessary cautions, and the evaluation of each contested issue.

On the contact offences and the grooming count (Counts 1 to 6), the central question was whether the alleged conduct occurred at all. His Honour accepted Isla's evidence, finding it consistent with established tendency evidence and credible notwithstanding matters raised in cross-examination. The accused was found guilty of sexual touching (Counts 1, 4, and the alternative to Count 3), inciting sexual touching (Count 2), sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation (Count 5), and grooming (Count 6). On Count 3, assault with intent to have sexual intercourse by penile penetration, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that specific element and returned a not guilty verdict, convicting instead on the statutory alternative of sexual touching.

On the child abuse material counts concerning images found on the accused's phone (Counts 8, 10, and 11), the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used Isla for the production of child abuse material on two specific dates and intentionally carried out a sexual act towards her when she was nine years old. On Count 7, possession of child abuse material as at the date of the police search, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and returned a not guilty verdict.

Orders Made

  • Count 1: Guilty
  • Count 2: Guilty
  • Count 3: Not guilty
  • Alternative Count 3: Guilty
  • Count 4: Guilty
  • Count 5: Guilty
  • Count 6: Guilty
  • Count 7: Not guilty
  • Count 8: Guilty
  • Count 10: Guilty
  • Count 11: Guilty

Key Takeaways

  • In a judge-alone trial, the trial judge is required to expose clearly the reasoning process, articulate applicable legal principles and warnings, summarise the parties' arguments, and resolve all issues of law and fact necessary to justify the verdicts reached.

  • A judge may bring life experience and professional experience to evaluating evidence, but is not permitted to use personal experience to make findings of fact or draw inferences unless the conditions for common knowledge under s 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) are satisfied, with any reliance disclosed to avoid unfair prejudice to a party.

  • The District Court treated tendency evidence as capable of supporting the complainant's credibility where her account was found to be consistent with established behavioural patterns, while applying the requisite cautions about onus of proof and the dangers of propensity reasoning.

  • Where a child complainant's evidence contained some inconsistencies or apparent limitations, the District Court found this did not necessarily undermine overall credibility, particularly where the account was otherwise accepted and corroborated by the accused's seized materials.

  • Returning a not guilty verdict on Count 3 (assault with intent to have sexual intercourse by penile penetration) while convicting on the statutory alternative of sexual touching illustrates that, even where the most serious element of a charge is not established beyond reasonable doubt, lesser included or alternative offences may still be made out on the same facts.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), including Part 5, Division 1A (pre-recorded evidence)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C(2), 66D, 66DB(a), 66DB(b), 66DC(a), 66EB(3), 91G(1)(a), 91H(2), 578A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132 (election for judge-alone trial)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 144 (common knowledge)

Cases
- Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229
- Evans v R; Evans v R [2024] NSWCCA 245
- R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158
- Smith (Mudarra) v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650
- The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 256 CLR 132
- WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58