After two trials and two and a half years, school teacher and former Wests Tigers player Keith Eshman has been completely acquitted of allegations of sexual offending against a child whilst he was her teacher at an Illawarra school.
He was initially tried before Judge Sharon Harris in June 2024 where he was acquitted of four charges but that jury was unable to reach verdicts in relation to one count of sexual touching. The Crown prosecutors elected to submit Mr Eshman for retrial on that count.
He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial commenced on 19 May 2025, with Mr Matthew Barnes barrister of Sir Owen Dixon Chambers appearing for Mr Eshman, instructed by Robert Candelori of McGirr & Associates.
A jury of 12 returned their verdict on Friday,23 May 2025 having spent just over an hour deliberating.
The jury heard evidence over four days from the young female complainant, her parents, teachers, and other staff at the school, and Mr Eshman. The court heard the girl allegedly told her parents that Mr Eshman had made her touch his "private part".
There was also evidence about the girl having touched her own genital area at home and at school, and her affectionate behaviour towards Mr Eshman. The jury heard that Mr Eshman had conversations with colleagues about the girl being "clingy" with him and touching herself. One teacher stated that Mr Eshman had always tried to distract the complainant from touching herself and appeared visibly uncomfortable when disclosing the behaviour.
Mr Eshman gave evidence that he was concerned by the girl’s behaviour and called her mother, having asked for support from colleagues. He also said the searches and web pages found on his digital devices were made in response to a comment a colleague made that the child could be touching herself because something was going on at home.
In his closing address on Thursday, defence barrister Matthew Barnes urged the jury to use "common sense" when assessing Eshman's behaviour.
Mr Barnes said the websites Eshman searched were "clearly" for "educational purposes" and suggested the jury might think the complainant was "refusing to be entirely upfront" with police.