Gympie’s Shane Stanley Jocumsen loses appeal over sex abuse convictions

A former Gympie region councillor jailed over historic sex abuse offences has challenged his conviction in the state’s Supreme Court.

Disgraced former Gympie councillor Shane Jocumsen as lost his appeal against convictions for historical sex abuse offences.

Disgraced former Gympie councillor Shane Stanley Jocumsen has lost his appeal over historical sexual abuse convictions which put him behind bars for at least eight months.

Jocumsen, who served as a councillor in the region from 2004 to 2008, was jailed in April 2022 after a jury found him guilty of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 17 and one of indecent assault.

The offences, against two boys, happened on unknown dates between 1979 and 1980, and in 1985.

Clocked at 150km: Teen busted speeding near fatal crash site

Jocumsen appealed the convictions saying two inconsistencies with one of the victim’s evidence “cast a shadow” over their reliability as a witness and made the verdicts unreasonable.

These inconsistencies centred on recollections over what car Jocumsen had been driving at the time of the first offences, and the location of other alleged acts against the victim for which the 61-year-old had not been charged.

200% spike: Region’s shocking rise in domestic violence

Shane Jocumsen was found guilty in April 2022 of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 17, and one count of indecent assault.

The car the victim recalled Jocumsen driving at the time of the first offending had not been bought until 1984, and the property the acts allegedly occurred at was not purchased until 1985.

Jocumsen said these unchallenged facts should have required the jury to entertain reasonable doubt.

Justice Peter Applegarth disagreed, dismissing Jocumsen’s appeal following a November hearing.

In the published Queensland Supreme Court ruling Justice Applegarth said these weaknesses in the evidence had been brought to the jury’s attention during the trial.

Justice Applegarth said the jury “had the advantage of hearing all the evidence” and could “reasonably accept” the victim had made a mistake about the car Jocumsen was driving at the time.

Justice Applegarth said the car bought in 1984 may have become “more memorable” over the decades and “become part of (the victim’s) recollection”.

He said the jury could reasonably consider the victim to be “honest, but unreliable” in his testimony regarding the location of the other acts.

Justice Applegarth said neither inconsistency required the jury to entertain reasonable doubt in relation to the first offences, and Jocumsen had not shown they reduced the value of other evidence given during the trial about those offences.