South Burnett “uncle” who raped eight-year-old child appeals sentence

A South Burnett man has made claims of an “inconsistent” verdict in an attempt to have a child rape conviction overturned.

A South Burnett man sentenced to three years in prison for raping an eight-year-old boy tried to have his conviction overturned, telling the court the verdict was “inconsistent”.

A South Burnett man sentenced to three years in prison for raping an eight-year-old boy has failed in an appeal against his conviction, claiming the verdict was “inconsistent”.

The 27-year-old, whose identity cannot be revealed for legal reasons, was convicted in Kingaroy District Court on April 19, 2024, after a four day trial.

He was facing an additional eight charges, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child and multiple counts of rape, but was acquitted on all other charges.

In September 2024, he was sentenced by Judge Suzanne Sheridan to three years in prison, suspended for three years after serving 15 months, taking into account 143 days already served behind bars.

However, six months after he was sentenced and almost a year after the guilty verdict was handed down, his legal team went before the Court of Appeal.

According to court documents, they argued the rape conviction was linked to the same incident as two other rape charges he was found not guilty of.

Therefore, the verdicts were “inconsistent” and didn’t make sense together, and he should be granted a new trial, his team claimed.

The court heard the victim, who was eight-years-old at the time of the alleged offences, told police he and his six-year-old brother were at their home with the defendant and “his mother was away drinking”.

In September 2024, Judge Suzanne Sheridan sentenced the defendant to three years in prison, suspended for three years after serving 15 months, and took into account the 143 days he had already been in custody.

He said the man, who he referred to as his “uncle”, told him to come to the boy’s mother’s room, where he proceeded to do “all the gay stuff to me”.

The court heard the assault allegedly stopped when his mother came home.

The boy said he then got scared and ran to his grandmother’s house.

The next morning, the boy was taken to hospital by family members and was interviewed by police.

He told his grandmother about the assault after he had run to her house the same afternoon.

The boy’s aunt and a nurse at the hospital gave similar evidence during the Kingaroy trial, both telling the court the victim told them his “uncle” has touched his private parts and mentioned contact with his anus.

His younger brother also gave evidence and said he saw the victim standing in his mother’s room with the defendant and the man was touching his brother “on his private parts” over this clothing.

A specialist paediatrician examined the boy at Toowoomba Hospital two days after the assault and gave evidence.

DNA testing on both the boy and the defendant did not find any evidence of someone else’s DNA present.

The 27-year-old man, whose identity cannot be revealed for legal reasons, was found guilty of one count of rape by a jury in Kingaroy District Court on April 19, 2024, after a four day trial.

According to the court documents, when asked to repeat his story, some of the details changed slightly, like which room they were in when the assault began, but the child’s description of the physical acts remained fairly consistent, repeatedly telling police and the court that his “uncle” put his penis and tongue in his anus.

The man’s legal team argued that because the evidence was virtually the same for all three rape charges, it didn’t make sense that he was found guilty of only one count.

Justice Robert Gotterson told the court while all three counts of rape were part of the same incident, there was a distinct difference between the one he was convicted of and the two he was found not guilty of.

He said there was no strong evidence the boy’s clothing had been removed, something that would have been necessary for penetration and would have conflicted with eyewitness accounts as well as parts of the boy’s own testimony.

However, he did not need to remove his clothing for the oral rape to have happened.

The court found there was not enough evidence to support the defendant’s claim that the verdict was flawed, and the appeal was dismissed.