Graeme Curran historical child sex appeal: judge’s reasons revealed
A Sydney jury should have held a reasonable doubt about whether a disgraced magistrate performed fellatio on a boy during a 1982 sailing trip to Pittwater, an appeal court ruled.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Top Sydney brain surgeon cleared of beating wife
- Kings Cross lawyer ‘terrified’ in prison, court hears
A former Sydney magistrate had two convictions for abusing a schoolboy nearly 40 years ago quashed after appeal judges raised doubts about the victim’s reliability.
Last month child sex offender Graeme Bryan Curran walked free from jail after his sentence was slashed upon a partially upheld appeal.
The Supreme Court of Criminal Appeal ruled a jury should have held a reasonable doubt about whether Curran performed fellatio on the boy during a 1982 sailing trip to Pittwater.
MORE NEWS
Ruby Princess blasts ‘baseless attacks’ by NSW
‘What terrible thing has he done to our innocent daughter?’
Chinese film star sued over $2m bail offer in Sydney rape case
A District Court jury found Curran guilty of seven out of nine counts of indecent assault and last August he was sentenced to two years and four months in prison with a non-parole period of 16 months.
But the Court of Appeal quashed two counts, ruling those jury verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.
Justices Robert Hulme, John Basten and Peter Hamill acquitted Curran of giving the child oral sex on a yacht, and he was also found not guilty of holding his victim down on the vessel while he cuddled and kissed him.
The judges noted the victim had changed his story about the alleged fellatio following his initial police statement.
“The complainant failed to make any allegation of an act of fellatio in spite of a number of opportunities to do so,” Justice Hamill said in a judgment published on Monday.
“Of even greater significance was that, when the complainant first spoke to police in 2004, he specifically denied that oral sex had ever occurred.”
Justice Hamill said although it raised doubts concerning the complainant’s reliability and accuracy, it “did not give rise to a general doubt as to his truthfulness or credibility.”
The decision reduced Curran’s sentence to 16 months with a non-parole period of nine months, meaning that with time already served he was immediately released.
The court did not quash another three counts which related to the same private boat trip, where Curran masturbated the teen on a sandbar and forced him to reciprocate before rubbing his erect penis against the boy’s body “like a dog humping a dog”.
“The evidence in relation to those matters was plausible and persuasive,” Justice Basten said.
Curran had wanted all his convictions set aside, with his barrister Phillip Boulten SC arguing the complainant underwent hypnotherapy which could have reshaped his memories, while the Crown’s closing address gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.
Prosecutor Mark Hobart SC told the jury Curran had a motive to lie about why he failed to call the boy’s parents on the Pittwater trip, adding the former magistrate also had a weakness for boys in general.
Justice Hulme slammed these as fundamentally flawed and prejudicial submissions, while Justice Hamill said the egregious errors drove the defence to ask for the jury to be discharged.
All three judges agreed the statements were improper but did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.
During the trial, the jury heard Curran treated his victim like a son, grooming his “little chicken” with expensive gifts and overseas holidays.
But Curran bathed and slept naked with the teenager during weekend sleepovers at his Sydney home, where he performed a Saturday “ritual” of prancing around in a nightgown before tracing his fingers over the boy’s genitals.
Justice Hulme found the victim’s evidence was supported by “rather odd statements” Curran made to the boy’s mother about feeling “embarrassed” and “ashamed” after seeing the child naked with an erection during one sleepover.
“There was also the payment of significant sums of money to the complainant a great many years after having had no contact with him,” he said.