Nikolaus Rudolf Okle was charged with possessing child sex abuse object

Police alleged a Mackay man was in possession of a child sex abuse object, however a magistrate dismissed the charge. Read why.

A man facing a charge of possessing a child sex abuse object has been dismissed in Mackay Magistrates Court.

A child sex abuse object charge has been dropped against an Andergrove man after police found what they alleged to be a plastic male juvenile doll fitted with paper mache genitalia in his bedroom.

Mackay Magistrates Court heard police alleged the doll had been dressed in “children’s clothing” and the attachment was painted a skin colour tone.

However Magistrate Damien Dwyer determined there was not enough evidence to commit the matter to the district court.

Police came across the object while executing a search warrant at Nikolaus Rudolf Okle’s Andergrove home on November 5, 2022.

The court heard the warrant had concerned video, camera and related storage devices and during an extensive search of Mr Okle’s property officers found a “mannequin” on top of a cupboard in his bedroom.

As a result Mr Okle, now 69, was charged with one count of possesses a child abuse object.

The offence is relatively new.

It was inserted in the Criminal Code (Child Sexual Offences Reform) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (Qld) and commenced on September 15, 2020.

Barrister Tony Collins, instructed by McKays Solicitors, made a no case submission against the charge during a committal hearing.

Mr Collins said the police case had included reference to “used tissues” being on the bed and “speculation” Mr Okle had been masturbating.

“Now this mannequin was on … the opposite wall, it was beside the television set,” Mr Collins said.

“The tissues were never tested.”

Magistrate Damien Dwyer questioned prosecution on what evidence a “properly instructed jury could convict on”.

Prosecutor Lennon Stathoulis argued photos of the doll revealed a “paper mache penis that has been attached to the doll” that had “also been sculptured in a way that’s anatomically correct for a young boy”.

“It’s been covered in a skin coloured paint,” Mr Stathoulis said.

“It’s a bit more than a simple doll dressed in kids clothes.

“It’s a doll that has been attached with a purpose-made sculpted genitalia.”

Mr Stathoulis submitted “a reasonable adult would consider its intended use in a sexual context”.

Mr Dwyer questioned what evidence backed up this allegation.

Mr Stathoulis submitted the “portrayal of the doll” would represent a child aged under 16 years old.

However Mr Dwyer said the clothing could have been chosen to fit the doll rather than because they were children’s clothing.

Mr Dwyer also said it was speculation the paper mache mould was genitalia that had been purposely attached to the doll.

The court heard Mr Okle told police he was aware of the doll in his room saying “it was only a warehouse puppet”, but there was no direct evidence suggesting he had known about the attachment.

Mr Collins argued the factual basis from any inference a jury could draw about the object “hasn’t been established”.

Mr Dwyer found there was not sufficient evidence and Mr Okle was discharged.