Rockhampton stepdad found guilty of three counts of indecent treatment of a child after two-day trial

A jury has found a Rockhampton stepdad guilty of sexual offences against his pre-pubescent stepdaughter. Here’s what happened.

A Rockhampton man has been found guilty of sexual offences against his stepdaughter. Generic image.

***WARNING: GRAPHIC MATERIAL***

A pre-pubescent girl who told her friend of the indecent sexual acts carried out by her stepfather did what society would hope a child in her situation would do – “she raised the alarm”.

The girl’s stepfather, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was on trial this week in Rockhampton District Court after pleading not guilty on November 14 to three counts of indecent treatment of a child.

He was accused of exposing the child to a pornographic film, exposing his genitals and touching her inappropriately.

The jury found him guilty after the two-day trial.

Crown prosecutor Caitlin Penfold said the victim did what society would hope a girl in her situation would do – “she raised the alarm”.

“She first rang the alarm at home when she told her mum some of what was happening to her,” Ms Penfold said.

“She then rang the alarm at school when she told her friends who then told the teacher.

“And finally, she rang the alarm when she told the police the full details of what was happening to her.”

The court heard child’s stepfather had been watching a video on his phone which he told her to watch with him.

Ms Penfold said the girl recalled this took place when other family members had left the house.

She said about five minutes later, the child became uncomfortable and went to her room with her stepfather following her and exposing his genitals.

Ms Penfold said the defendant masturbated in front of the girl and she told him to do it elsewhere.

She said the defendant responded that the child was not helping him and he did not stop until they heard noises which indicated others had arrived home.

Ms Penfold said the next incident took place sometime after Christmas, with the girl recalling her mother and stepfather were downstairs entertaining visitors.

She said the child recalled the defendant would come upstairs periodically and see her and first touched her upper thigh, then touched her underneath her pyjamas on her vagina.

“She told him to stop and wrapped herself tightly in a blanket,” Ms Penfold said.

Ms Penfold said the child may not have recalled every detail when she told the jury what happened.

She said in determining their verdict, the jury needed to consider the alleged victim’s credibility through her demeanour where the child “presented as genuine and reserved”, “softly spoken” and appeared to be “a little bit embarrassed” at times.

Ms Penfold said the child was also forthright and maintained a consistent account.

She said the girl recalled what the defendant was wearing during one of the alleged offences – black pants, a dark shirt, and a black vest with red outlines.

“She knew it (the defendant’s hand) was under her pyjamas because his fingers were cold,” Ms Penfold said.

She said there were instances where the child could have “embellished” or “exaggerated” her version of what happened, but she did not.

Ms Penfold said the girl accepted under cross-examination she was not forced to watch the pornography film.

She said the defendant had shown sexual interest in the child, “saying several things to her”.

Ms Penfold said the defendant told the child he had watched her in the past touching her own genitals while she was bathing.

She said the girl also talked about an “icy pole” incident where she was eating an icy pole in a certain way due to sensitive teeth and the defendant allegedly told her the way she was eating it looked wrong and “if you can do it to the iceblock, why not do it to me as well”.

Ms Penfold told the jury there were no charges laid for the alleged iceblock incident.

“However, you might think that it shows that he had a sexual interest in (the child),” she said.

“There is no reason why a man in his 30s should be speaking to a young girl in that way, particularly not to a stepdaughter.”

Ms Penfold said there were further comments regarding the child touching herself while in the bath that indicated he had watched her.

However, defence barrister Maree Willey said there were inconsistencies in the child’s testimony, along with her mother’s testimony casting a shadow on some of what the child claimed happened.

Ms Willey said the child’s mother had watched her child around the defendant after revealing the pornography incident and told the court the child was happy to be around the defendant and did not display any behaviours that caused her concern.

“She mentions nothing about the iceblock comment,” Ms Willey said.

“She mentions nothing to her mother to do with the bath … and nothing about (the pyjama incident).

Ms Willey said the child claimed she always told her mother what happened and her mother would talk to the defendant and he would “always deny it”.

Judge Jeff Clarke sentenced the defendant to 18 months’ prison and declared 207 days pre-sentence custody as time served.

No declarations were made about parole, but under Queensland legislation, a person found guilty in a trial has to serve at least half of their sentence before they are eligible to apply for parole.