Jurors retired at lunchtime yesterday to consider their verdict but were later excused for the afternoon when one of them took ill. They resumed deliberating this morning.
In his closing submissions, Mr Rishworth told jurors his client had at the outset voluntarily undergone a recorded interview with police in which he waived his right to consult a lawyer and had answered questions fully and frankly.
The case was entirely hinged on whether jurors accepted the girl’s evidence as credible and reliable.
She was young and troubled. Her allegation arose a few months on from an argument with her grandfather, after which she had stopped speaking to him.
It was also after incidents in which she and boys about her age had been engaging in inappropriate sexual touching. Her parents, concerned about that behaviour, agreed one of them should try to discuss with her if there was something else causing it.
The girl’s disclosure had shifted all focus from her behaviour with the young boys to her grandfather. An inevitable roller-coaster began and the matter “took on a life of its own”, Mr Rishworth said.
No corroborating evidenceWhile it was not required in law, there was nothing to corroborate her allegation — no medical or independent evidence.
There were inconsistencies in her evidence. There was no television set in the room where she alleged the offending took place.
She denied claims made independently by the accused and another male relative that she had at times acted inappropriately towards them by grabbing their penises.
The case was unusual, as it was the girl entering her grandfather’s bed — not the typical scenario where an adult approached a child, Mr Rishworth said.
In cross-examination he asked the girl why she kept going into her grandfather’s bed if what she alleged was occurring there. The girl responded because she thought it would stop but it didn’t.
Crown prosecutor Jo Rielly urged jurors to consider that the girl had maintained the exact same allegation throughout the lengthy prosecution process.
She might have been genuinely mistaken as to whether she watched television in the room but that did not mean she was wrong about her allegation. She also said she would sometimes use her electronic tablet while there. That was confirmed by her grandfather during his interview.
Her grandfather had also agreed she would often get into bed with him and that sometimes he had been sleeping without pants.
Whether she had acted out sexually with or upon other children was not the issue in the case. It was not up to jurors to judge her for what she was doing and say that because of it she was not credible or reliable.
That sexualised behaviour had all been reported by third parties — not witnessed by anyone. It was peripheral evidence.
The real relevance of it was that it was why her parents starting asking questions about what was going in her life, which was what led to her disclosure.
Proceeding
