When directing a jury on the elements of s 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), it is insufficient to identify a pre-existing non-sexual relationship (such as father-daughter) and direct that it becomes an 'unlawful sexual relationship' if two or more unlawful sexual acts occurred within it. The jury must be directed that the Crown must prove the maintenance of an unlawful sexual relationship as a distinct element. However, the proper construction of s 66EA remains contested, with Basten AJA favouring the South Australian approach in R v Mann that the 'relationship' element requires proof of a relationship (not necessarily sexual) in which sexual acts occurred, rather than requiring proof of a 'sexual relationship' as an additional element beyond the sexual acts themselves.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.