A Canberra man is facing likely jail time after two juries in separate trials found him guilty of sexually abusing a friend's teenage daughters.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Michael Alan Gillard told the girls ''what happens in Canberra stays in Canberra'' when they stayed with him intermittently in the 1990s.
And in two separate trials the ACT Supreme Court heard ''what happened'' in Canberra was the sexual abuse of both sisters.
Justice John Burns yesterday lifted a suppression order preventing the disclosure of Gillard's identity after the jury found the man guilty of abusing the younger girl.
Gillard, taking the witness box in his defence earlier this week, denied ever having any sexual interaction with the then-teen. But the victim told the court she was just 13 when the family friend committed an act of indecency on her and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.
It can now be revealed he was found guilty in September of several sexual offences relating to the girl's older sister, who was also in her teens at the time.
He was at the time also convicted of using the older girl to produce child pornography and forcing the older sister to give him oral sex in front of her younger sibling.
Gillard was, however, acquitted on several charges at the earlier trial.
The crimes, with the exception of the child pornography charge, occurred during school holidays when the girls would travel from their interstate home to Canberra.
Their brother was living in the capital, and the girls would regularly come to visit him, staying with Gillard at his unit on some occasions.
During this week's three-day trial, both sisters and their parents gave evidence about the time periods in which this arrangement apparently operated.
Gillard's barrister, Ken Archer, in cross-examination and his closing address to the jury, highlighted inconsistencies in the witnesses' evidence about dates.
But in her evidence, the complainant said she was sure it was the 1995-96 Christmas holidays because she used her impending initiation into high school as a reference point.
''It was the Christmas holidays going to 1996 ... because I was just starting Year 7 and I was so worried about starting Year 7, if I was fat, and pretty enough,'' the witness said.
She did not come forward until 2008 ''because he was my dad's ... friend and I didn't want to start any fights and I didn't think no-one would believe me'', she explained.
Likewise, at the earlier trial, the jury heard the older sister did not come forward until years after the event.
Prosecutor Kylie Weston-Scheuber, questioning Gillard, suggested the girl ''struck you as the kind of person who was unlikely to complain if she was assaulted by you in the way she says she was''.
He rejected the suggestion.
The man also said the ''what happens in Canberra'' comment wasn't serious and meant they could relax, stay up late and speak freely around him.
In their closing submissions both Ms Weston-Scheuber and Mr Archer said the case essentially came down to Gillard's word against the complainant.
The defence barrister said for the jury to find Gillard guilty they would have to reject his version of events, and argued there was no evidence for them to do so.
But the jury took a little more than two hours to return guilty verdicts on both charges.
Gillard, who shook his head slightly as the findings were handed down, remains on bail but faces a sentencing proceeding in relation to the older girl tomorrow.