AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 31 July 2026

Brown v R

[2026] NSWCCA 114

Sexual offences
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION WHETHER JURY ’ S VERDICT UNREASONABLE APPLICANT LONG TIME FRIEND OF FAMILY

Citation: Brown v R [2026] NSWCCA 114
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 31 July 2026
Judge(s): Leeming JA (principal judgment); McNaughton J and Sweeney J (agreeing)

Background

The applicant, a man approximately 12 years older than the complainant, was convicted after a ten-day jury trial of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16, contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The applicant had entered the complainant's life in 2001 as a babysitter when the complainant was six years old, and over the following decade assumed a paternal role in the family, going on holidays with them and regularly sharing a bed with the complainant. The Crown alleged repeated sexual acts, including oral sex, occurring in showers, at home, and on holiday between 2001 and 2011.

Eight additional charges were originally presented. Five were discontinued during trial and three resulted in directed not-guilty verdicts, leaving the single s 66EA(1) count for the jury. The complainant was the only witness to give direct evidence of offending. Supporting evidence came from two former partners of the complainant, who each recounted disclosures made years before any police report, and from the applicant's own mother, who gave evidence that the applicant repeatedly entered the bathroom while the complainant was showering by unhooking the lock.

A significant credibility issue arose during trial. A witness assistance officer gave unchallenged evidence that the complainant had disclosed using "weed, ketamine and cocaine," directly contradicting his earlier evidence that he had only used drugs once. The applicant's case was that the complainant had fabricated the allegations to pursue a drug debt the applicant had allegedly refused to pay. The applicant denied all sexual contact. He was ultimately sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a four-year non-parole period.

  • Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence, specifically because:
  • The complainant deliberately lied about his drug use, undermining his credibility as the sole direct witness
  • The complainant's account lacked corroboration
  • The majority of counts lacked specific detail
  • There was significant delay between the alleged abuse and the formal complaint
  • It was unlikely the alleged conduct would have gone undetected by family members
  • The complainant maintained an amicable ongoing relationship with the applicant after turning 18

Decision

Ground (a): The complainant's lies about drug use

Leeming JA accepted that the complainant's deliberate lie about drug use, established by unchallenged evidence from the witness assistance officer, materially undermined his credibility. However, the court held that a jury is entitled to accept some parts of a witness's evidence and reject others, even where that witness has been shown to have lied. The lie about drug use was placed squarely before the jury, and there was no reason to doubt the jury weighed that evidence and its effect on credit before returning its verdict.

Ground (b): Absence of corroboration

The court found this was not a case where the complainant's evidence stood entirely alone. The complainant had made disclosures to two former partners several years before any police involvement, and one partner described the complainant shaking in the applicant's presence. The applicant's own mother gave evidence consistent with the complainant's account of the bathroom incidents. The court held it was open to the jury to treat the lie about drugs as confined to that topic, separate from the complainant's evidence of sexual abuse.

Ground (c): Lack of detail in the counts and directed verdicts on other charges

The court rejected the argument that the failure of other counts for lack of specificity undermined the s 66EA(1) conviction. The offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship exists precisely because child victims of repeated abuse over extended periods are commonly unable to particularise individual incidents with the precision that individual discrete counts require. It was sufficient that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that abuse occurred on at least two occasions.

Ground (d): Delay in complaint, unlikelihood of detection, and continued relationship

The court dismissed each of the remaining grounds in turn. Delay in reporting child sexual abuse does not indicate a false allegation, particularly where abuse began during childhood. The court observed that child sexual abuse is frequently committed while other family members are nearby, and the alleged conduct here occurred at night, behind closed doors, or in showers, consistent with the applicant's mother's own evidence. As for the continued relationship after the complainant turned 18, the court noted that children react to abuse in varied ways, and it is not uncommon for victims who remained dependent on an offender to maintain outwardly amicable contact for years.

Orders Made

  • Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to 10 April 2026
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • A jury's verdict is not rendered unreasonable merely because the sole direct witness was shown to have lied on a separate topic. The jury retains the function of deciding which parts of a witness's evidence to accept, provided credibility issues are placed before them.

  • Under s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a conviction for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship does not require corroboration of individual incidents. The offence is designed to capture patterns of repeated abuse where particularisation of discrete occasions is not possible.

  • Disclosures made to third parties years before any formal police complaint, and evidence from a defence witness consistent with the complainant's account, can constitute corroborative material supporting a verdict, even where the Crown's primary case depends on a single witness.

  • Delay in complaint by a child victim of sexual abuse does not, without more, indicate the allegation is false. The Court of Criminal Appeal reaffirmed that societal stereotypes about how victims behave, including expectations of immediate reporting or avoidance of an alleged offender, do not form a proper basis for finding a verdict unreasonable.

  • In dismissing the appeal, the court confirmed that child sexual abuse is frequently committed in circumstances where detection is possible but does not occur, and that the presence of other family members nearby does not make allegations of abuse inherently improbable.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 66EA , 578A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 294, 294AA
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 164, 165B
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5

Cases
- BQ v The King (2024) 279 CLR 124; [2024] HCA 29
- Carnaby v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 275
- Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
- Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
- Harper v R [2022] NSWCCA 211
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- MK v R (2023) 112 NSWLR 96; [2023] NSWCCA 180
- R v ZT (2025) 281 CLR 137; [2025] HCA 9
- Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517; [2005] HCA 4