Ipswich man acquitted of child sex assault after child’s confession

A man has been acquitted of child sexual abuse following the alleged victim’s shock confession to his mother, which suggested foul play from the child’s father, who “hated” the man.

An Ipswich man has been acquitted of child sexual assault after the alleged victim’s shock confession.

An Ipswich child confessed to his mum that her boyfriend never “hurt” him — five days after a jury heard his testimony to the contrary.

The child now alleges his father had coerced him to make the false allegations against the man.

The man was convicted on April 1, 2022, of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12 in his care (DV) after a trial in Ipswich District Court.

The man pleaded not guilty and flatly denied all accusations against him — but the jury found him guilty.

Five days after the verdict, the child admitted the allegations against him were untrue.

It wasn’t until nearly a year later, in February 2023, that the verdict was appealed and the man was formally acquitted.

It is unknown whether he spent any time in custody for the alleged offence.

The maximum penalty for his charge was 20 years in prison; however, it is understood that he was not sentenced for the charge.

The appeal documents reveal the child’s mother’s account of how her son “was not looking very happy” in the days following the verdict, and she had asked if he was okay.

“He initially just shrugged indicting that he didn’t really want to talk and he was being ambivalent,” the affidavit recounts.

“I then said to him ‘come on buddy, you can talk to Mum, what’s going on?’.

At this time he turned and looked at me and said “Mum, [the man] never hurt me”.

A child has confessed his sex assault allegations were untrue, after the man was convicted at trial in Ipswich District Court (pictured). Picture: NCA NewsWire / John Gass

The child was interviewed by police in February 2023, and maintained that the man had never hurt him.

The child claimed in that interview that his father had told him to say what he did.

Court documents reveal the child told police: “I think, that my dad told me to do that, to say that in court and stuff”.

“Because my dad like hated [the man].”

The child confessed he was scared his dad might physically hurt him if he didn’t testify, saying “I just didn’t know what to do, ‘cause I didn’t wanna be beaten up. ‘Cause I went to my dad’s every weekend.”

It is unknown whether the child’s father has been charged with any alleged wrongdoing at this time.

Court documents reveal the alleged victim was eight years old when he told police his mum’s boyfriend had sexually assaulted him on two occasions – once when exiting the shower, and once after he had been taken into a bedroom.

The child also alleged the man had threatened to kill him and his family if he told anyone.

The man was initially charged with two counts of indecent treatment, but it was alleged at trial that only one incident occurred – in which the child had allegedly been taken into the bedroom after exiting the shower.

The appeal documents further examined the child’s prerecorded interview, which was played as evidence at the initial trial.

He was asked “Has any adult told you to say something that you know to be a lie?” — to which he responded “I can’t remember if an adult did or not”.

At no point did the defence put it to the child that the offending did not occur — and the defence admitted at the time of the trial that this was an oversight on their part.

The trial judge had informed the jury of this oversight during his summing up, saying “You have not had the benefit of hearing [the child] respond himself to the suggestion that his account was untrue.

“However, we proceed on the basis that his answer to that question would have been that he did not agree with the suggestion that his evidence was untrue.”

On appeal, this was deemed a “misdirection” and “miscarriage of justice”, as the jury was asked to “speculate” upon the evidence the child would have given.

The appeal concluded: “The child’s present version not only impugns the only evidence of commission of the alleged offence, but also undermines the evidence of the only other Crown witness, the child’s father.”

“No credible case can now be mounted by the Crown against [the defendant]”.