Nicholas Webber’s appeal was dismissed.
Nicholas Webber’s appeal was dismissed.

Man’s sexual relations with 15yo girl: appeal dismissed

A MAN who had sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl and introduced her to "ice" has had his appeal dismissed.

A decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Queensland this week found that there was enough evidence to convict Nicholas Alexander John Webber of five charges.

Webber was convicted after trial before a jury in the Maroochydore District Court on August 29 last year on three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and two counts of carnal knowledge of a child under 16.

His grounds for appeal were that the jury overlooked witness evidence and the forensic evidence was not of standard.

The court document read that in September 2016, the complainant was 15-years-old. Webber was known to her mother.

The first incident happened when Webber kissed the complainant on the lips.

Her physical reaction was to back off and she did not say much at all.

On the same day as the kiss, penile/vagina sexual intercourse took place between Webber and the complainant.

The complainant said: "I can remember not wanting it … I can remember crying when it all finished. And I can remember him saying that he was sorry because it was wrong that I was 15 and I certainly do remember saying that I didn't want it and it hurt."

The evidence also read that Webber introduced the complainant to smoking "ice". On one night after smoking ice, they had "dry sex".

The complainant described it as Webber fondling her genitals and her breasts.

She did not take her clothes off, but Webber pulled her on top of his lap. She "was riding him on top" and she could feel his crotch.

When asked how she felt about the situation, she responded: "Yeah, I thought it was OK. I thought that it was OK what we were doing because my mum didn't know and he made me feel good."

The document also read that the complainant gave Webber oral sex one night and that they continued to have penile/vaginal sexual intercourse over a period of time.

In April 2017 or 2018, the complainant told her mother about her having sexual intercourse with Webber but did not make a complaint straight away. It was on the second occasion that she went to the police station that she wrote her statement.

The cross-examination drew out a number of inconsistencies from what the complainant said on different occasions. On the first occasion they had sexual intercourse, the complainant had told police that the appellant had pinned her arms down on either side, but she did not refer to that in her direct examination.

It was put to the complainant that when she went to the police station in April 2017, she never mentioned an allegation of rape, where she explained that it was because she thought what happened to her was not rape.

It was not until she wrote her statement that the investigating police officer said to her: "You have been raped. Rape doesn't mean you were held down and you were raped. Rape comes under a big umbrella."

The complainant's parents gave evidence that they noticed she had become moody and withdrawn during the time of the offences.

The complainant did not speak to her mother about Webber until April 2017 when she told her that Webber "did sleep with me and also he fed me a crack pipe".

The document read Webber's cousin had said he brought a young lady to their house one evening as he had been staying with them towards the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017, and saw her again with him in the car a few weeks later.

Webber's cousin said that at one point, he told her in respect of the girl "that he had had a relationship with her or that they had seen each other or were seeing each other".

A phone call between Webber and the complainant was also used as evidence.

"My assessment of the whole of the evidence is that the verdicts of the jury were not

unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence," Justice Mullins declared.

"The appellant cannot succeed in his appeal."