Jury finds Kingaroy man not guilty of raping daughter
A JURY has found a Kingaroy man not guilty of raping his six-year-old daughter.
The 30-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, faced the district court this week on one count of rape and one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12.
On November 19, 2017, police were called to a Kingaroy residence after the six-year-old allegedly told her mum, "Daddy put his hand down my pants".
The mother and her three children went to the Kingaroy Police Station, where the six-year-old was interviewed by police.
After some prompting by an officer, the girl said, "Daddy put his finger up where I go to the toilet to do my wees".
The child told police her father spat on his finger before he inserted it inside of her.
She also told police her father licked her "where she does her wees" and "it felt yucky".
Crown prosecutor Alex Stark said the fundamental issue of the trial was that the jury believe the six-year-old.
"That you accept her evidence as honest and reliable, and that you have no reasonable doubt that that's the truth of what happened. That that 6-year-old girl was telling police what her father, the defendant, did to her," he said.
"In my submission, you would accept that evidence because she could only reasonably be speaking from actual experience of sexual acts that her father did to her that night."
In his closing statement, Mr Stark reminded the jury of the six-year-old's mother, who sobbed while giving evidence on the witness stand.
"On the defence's suggestion, she's come in here and lied through her teeth.
"Did she present to you as someone lying through her teeth? Faking what appeared to be genuine emotion at just the right point of talking about her daughter's distress?" he said.
"If you were to have any reasonable doubt that she was faking that emotion, well give that woman an Oscar."
Defence barrister Rob Glenday reminded the jury that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
"He remains innocent until each and every one of you collectively are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the crown has proved its case," he said.
"What does this mean? It means that after the careful consideration you give the case, you'll arrive at different conclusions. You may decide that there's nothing reliable in these allegations, and in that case he'll have to be not guilty.
"On the other hand, you may decide maybe, just maybe, he did commit the offences, and if you reach that conclusion, again you must return a verdict of not guilty - you have not been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.
"If you eventually get to the stage where you think the defendant probably did it, you are duty-bound to return a verdict of not guilty. You must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it."
Mr Glenday said it was not the defendant's role in this trial to prove the complainant had a motive.
"It's always the responsibility of the crown to prove everything in this trial, and the defendant has to prove nothing. The defence in this case is simple: these allegations did not happen."
The jury of six men and six women deliberated for five hours and asked to review footage of the six-year-old's interview and cross-examination before coming to a verdict.
The 30-year old man was found not guilty and judge Glen Cash released him of all charges.