14 Mr B in 1997, allegedly for a mortgage bond repayment and policies which had to be paid. Mr B had repaid this loan after the appellant started practising again. Mr B had asked the appellant for a second loan in 1997, but the appellant could not afford it. Both F, as well Mrs B, had also borrowed money from the appellant. The B’s daughter, H, had twice written to him asking him for a ‘donation’, once for her glass work and once for a pair of shoes. He had also purchased an outfit for her. A had asked him for money to go on a cricket tour, as well as for ‘presents’ which he (the appellant) could not afford, such as a tennis racket and a mobile telephone. Under cross-examination, the appellant stated that he had at no stage felt that he was being abused, and that the requests for money and for free dental services had not influenced his friendship with the family. [31] The appellant confirmed that he had received psychological treatment after his 1991 convictions on charges of child molestation, and that this was a condition of suspension of his sentence because he had tendencies towards paedophilia. Under cross-examination, the appellant alleged that this psychological treatment had ‘helped’ him. When asked why, if that were so, he was convicted on a similar charge in 2002, the appellant’s response was that he had pleaded not guilty in the ‘second case’. [32] According to the appellant, the complainant had told him that he had had a sexual relationship with one of his school friends (a boy) for approximately four years. As far as he could remember, the complainant had made this revelation to him in the first quarter of 2000. In response to a question posed by counsel for the State, the appellant said that his attitude to sexual matters was on the conservative side and that he had been somewhat shocked and taken aback when the complainant had told him of this relationship. His reaction was to tell the complainant that it was wrong and that he must never do such a thing again. He however could not remember the precise circumstances of this conversation between himself and the complainant, although he knew that it had taken place at the B home. [33] Regarding the confrontation between Mrs B and himself in January 2003, the appellant testified that he was visiting the B family on a Sunday afternoon after A had telephoned him that morning. After the complainant and A left, telling him that they