Court

Defence: Boy Concocted Story After Recognising Passer-By
Thur 15th Nov 2012, Yellow Advertiser

DEFENCE barrister Patrick Gibbs told jurors that the boy at the centre of his client’s sexual grooming trial has concocted his allegations because he believed he had been spotted by someone he knew.

In his police interview, Dr Van Dellen insisted nothing inappropriate had occurred between him and the boy.

Asked whether any witnesses could verify his account, he immediately recalled a passer-by.

Dr Van Dellen told cops the boy had made a comment about knowing the passer-by.

Mr Gibbs told jurors the boy was scared that somebody he knew may have seen him parked in a secluded area with an older man.

He said: “Did [the boy] think there was going to be no comeback about that? No chat about that? No trouble about that?”

Mr Gibbs told jurors his client had not realised the real significance of the potential witness.

He said: “Mr Van Dellen says, ‘The passer-by couldn’t have not seen into the car and couldn’t have not seen that there was nothing going on in the car’.

“That’s what he thinks the relevance is. But it’s not what the relevance is.”

Mr Gibbs suggested the boy had fabricated the sexual assault to protect himself.

He explained: “In case it ever gets mentioned, he has that in first.”

He suggested that the boy’s behaviour on the night he met Dr Van Dellen was not unusual.

He read jurors two text messages the boy had sent to another male about meeting him in the woods the previous night.

He also produced evidence that the boy had used the internet to describe himself as a ‘sex bomb’ and brag about using his youthful looks to attract men.

Jurors heard that when the boy got home he messaged a friend and told her he had been raped.

The friend insisted the boy tell his family, who called police.

Mr Gibbs said when the boy realised his story could have serious consequences, he began deleting all evidence of his meeting with Dr Van Dellen.

Jurors were told the boy deleted all of his copies of their correspondence before police could find it.

They were shown two texts the boy sent to Van Dellen asking him to do the same.

Dr Van Dellen did not comply.

Mr Gibbs told jurors: “What starts out as a small lie – as a comment to a friend – soon turns, when he is asked to put his money where his mouth is, into a big lie.”

Jurors were played a video of the boy’s police interview.

In it he gave a detailed account of the alleged sexual assault, but prosecutors accepted that forensic findings contradicted his story.

Mr Gibbs told jurors the interview showed the boy was an ‘accomplished liar’.

He said: “Even when he is saying things which we all know are lies – including the prosecution – he is calm.”

Prosecutor Cyrus Shroff acknowledged the boy’s ‘economy with the truth’ but told jurors he may have been dishonest because he was embarrassed about what had happened.

He said: “Look at why you think he was economical with the truth. Embarrassment? Shame? Confusion?”

Jurors took one hour to acquit Dr Van Dellen last Friday.

Back to Van Dellen Trial

Back to Court

Back to Portfolio