NOT GUILTY: Foster dad acquitted of child rape accusations

A jury has found a Queensland man accused of raping his young foster son not guilty – after what a judge noted had been an “abject failure of a police investigation”.

After a week-long trial, a Queensland man accused of raping his foster son repeatedly over the span of three years, has been acquitted.

The man pleaded not guilty on Monday, August 22, in Ipswich District Court to two counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child.

The court heard the child helped the man at his workplace throughout the unlawful relationship, which allegedly lasted almost three years.

On August 25, Judge Dennis Lynch recounted how the child’s prerecorded evidence, heard by the jury on Monday, had conflicted at times with his initial interviews with police.

The defence had highlighted inconsistencies in the child’s account of how often the sexual abuse occurred, when the first incident of abuse occurred, and a changing account on whether or not he had been sexually abused in the shower at one stage.

The child had also claimed he had told his aunt several details which she said she did not recall hearing.

Part of the child’s conversation with his aunt was recorded, which revealed he did tell her that the man had attempted to touch him – but not that he had actually touched him.

The child explained the inconsistencies by saying he hadn’t understood what he was being asked about in the initial police interviews.

He had further claimed the man had been violent with him and that he would have bruises – but no witnesses were able to corroborate seeing any bruises other than one observed by a doctor on his thigh.

The doctor who examined the child the day after the alleged rape said they found no abnormalities, and the DNA evidence conducted the same day also detected no DNA from any individual apart from the child.

The child also claimed “not to recall” details such as being suspended from school and the defendant taking him to the police station to address the child’s issues with stealing – which Judge Lynch noted would have been a risky choice for the defendant to have made if the child’s allegations were true.

Judge Lynch noted the child had also said the accused had chased him in his car on one occasion, and had given a detailed description of the car he said the defendant was driving at the time; however, the man wasn’t actually in possession of that car at the time of the alleged incident.

Judge Lynch said the defence had argued this “shows willingness to invent a story – a false story – directed at the defendant” and that “there is no basis upon which you could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you should reject the defendant’s account”.

He further pointed out that “there has been an abject failure of a police investigation” involved, as there had been several issues including a limited effort to obtain further evidence.

Judge Lynch addressed the jury saying, “I warn you that it would be dangerous to convict upon the complainant’s testimony alone, unless … you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of its truth and accuracy”.

“There is no independent evidence which is capable of confirming [the child’s] account in any material respect.”

After some deliberation, the jury found the defendant not guilty of all charges, and the man was able to walk free.