Sam Duluk trial: Connie Bonaros tells court of ‘intoxicated’ fellow MP’s behaviour leading up to alleged assault

Connie Bonaros has told a court fellow MP Sam Duluk drank heavily and behaved obnoxiously at a Christmas party before allegedly “whacking” her bottom.

State MP Connie Bonaros has told a court fellow politician Sam Duluk put ice down her top, lifted her up, forced her to dance and slapped her bottom at a parliamentary Christmas party in 2019.

But Mr Duluk’s counsel questioned Ms Bonaros’s recollection of events, claiming her evidence does not match that of an alleged eyewitness – meaning Mr Duluk’s guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.

On Tuesday, Mr Duluk, 37, has pleaded not guilty to one basic count of assault. It is alleged he assaulted Ms Bonaros by placing an arm around her waist and slapping her on the bottom at the 2019 crossbench Christmas party.

Ms Bonaros told the Adelaide Magistrates Court that immediately after the alleged assault, which left her feeling “extraordinarily humiliated”, she told Mr Duluk to “sit the f--- down” and asked him “do you think that because you are some Liberal powerbroker, you can do whatever you want?”.

If convicted, Mr Duluk faces a maximum two-year jail term – a penalty that will not, under the rules of state parliament, see him lose his seat.

After the alleged incident, Mr Duluk was banned from the Liberal party room, voluntarily surrendered his membership and apologised. He now sits as an independent MP.

A parliamentary inquiry was to be held but was paused when charges were laid.

This is how day one of his trial unfolded.

Sam Duluk, (right) arrives at court with his lawyer Matt Selley. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

AT THE PARTY BEFORE THE INCIDENT

In her evidence, Ms Bonaros said she first saw Mr Duluk around 5.30pm, when he turned up uninvited to the crossbench Christmas party.

“He made a very loud entrance … he certainly did not go unnoticed,” Ms Bonaros said in her evidence.

“I hadn’t invited him … my observation was that he was intoxicated.”

Ms Bonaros said she posed for a photo with Mr Duluk and Labor MLC Justin Hanson after a joke was made about their similar appearances.

She conceded their similarity was mainly due to their “shaved haircuts”.

“I’m a lot shorter and slighter than both of them … I made a comment to the effect that I was clearly very short in the line-up,” she said.

“It was at that point I was lifted up … Mr Duluk hoisted me up so that I was level with him and Mr Hanson … I can’t recall precisely where his hands were.

“I had to grab on to Mr Hanson to secure myself from falling … I told them to put me down.”

Mr Duluk, she said, subsequently tried to remove the jacket of the parliamentary librarian during a game of charades.

She said he then went to the drinks table, picked up a bottle of either gin or vodka “and started drinking from the bottle”.

“This sort of behaviour went on more than once, at least two or three occasions where he went to the drinks table, picked up bottles and drank from them,” she said.

Ms Bonaros said Mr Duluk “came and went” from the party.

“He just kept appearing,” she said.

“There would be some commotion, there would be some incident, and then he would leave until he appeared again.

“On one of those instances he held a bottle up to my mouth and asked me to have a drink … I said ‘I don’t skol from bottles’ and he walked away.”

Connie Bonaros arrives at court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

Later, when she was sitting in a chair, Mr Duluk grabbed its handles and “literally hoisted it into the air” with her in it.

“I made a comment to the effect of ‘people can see up my dress, put me down’,” she said.

She said she then left the party, along with Ms Franks, to “get away from what was becoming an increasingly uncomfortable situation”.

Ms Bonaros said several other incidents occurred once she returned to the party.

“He made comments that he had alcohol in his office, and would I like to accompany him to his office, which I refused to do,” she said.

“On another occasion, he approached me and poured ice down the front of my dress and put his arm around my shoulder.”

Ms Bonaros said Mr Duluk went into her private office and “made himself at home” behind her desk.

“This is my political office, where I keep my work … I had certain things on my desk that I didn’t want anybody to look at,” she said.

“I was a bit surprised he was sitting behind my desk … I said ‘what the f--- are you doing there?’ … he told me that I had a big office.”

She said Mr Duluk told her he had noticed a funeral card for her mother on her desk, and she asked him not to talk about it before going “to the bathroom, upset”.

Sam Duluk (right) arrives at court with his lawyer Matt Selley. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

THE ALLEGED ASSAULT

Later, when there was music and dancing, Mr Duluk grabbed her hands and said “dance with me” – Ms Bonaros said she was “uneasy” and broke away from him after a few seconds.

She said that, as the party wound down, Mr Duluk approached her again.

“I don’t know what direction it was from, it certainly wasn’t from head-on,” she said.

“He proceeded to put his arm around me and whack me on the bottom … it happened suddenly … it was a matter of seconds.

“It felt like I was being swept up by one arm and then whacked by the other arm, like he had grabbed me by the waist and then proceeded to slap me.

“My next instinct, after he did what he did, was to tell Mr Duluk to sit the f--- down.”

Ms Bonaros said she sat down next to Mr Duluk for a brief moment.

“I asked him what he was doing, I said ‘do you think that because you are some Liberal powerbroker, you can do whatever you want?’,” she said.

“I was extraordinarily humiliated by what had just happened … I was shocked but also extremely embarrassed and was trying to process what had just happened.

“I got up very quickly and went to the bathroom … when I came back, I didn’t see him.”

CROSS-EXAMINATION

In cross-examination, Marie Shaw QC, for Mr Duluk, asked Ms Bonaros how many alcoholic drinks she had consumed, and whether she was solely responsible for inviting people to the party.

Ms Bonaros said she had three drinks, and “didn’t know many of the people there” at the party.

When Ms Shaw suggested Mr Duluk had asked Ms Bonaros to dance, she replied: “He didn’t give me an opportunity to do otherwise”, adding she had not wanted to cause him “embarrassment or humiliation”.

When Ms Shaw suggested Ms Bonaros had “smiled” in the photo of her, Mr Duluk and Mr Hanson, she agreed – but said it was “an uncomfortable smile” because she was “concerned about my dress”.

Ms Shaw suggested Ms Bonaros had, in a text message, told a staffer she did not want that photo “to see the light of day”.

Ms Bonaros said she did not recall any such message.

“If I did say it, that was because I was under an enormous amount of stress … I didn’t want the entire thing (the case) to see the light of day,” she said.

She said that, when Mr Duluk had lifted both her and the chair, her “feet were off the ground”.

She said she had risen “as far as Mr Duluk can lift 55kg off the ground”.

Her office was open, she conceded, because it was being used to store cutlery but said it was supposed to be accessed only by “staff I knew”.

Mr Duluk was, she accepted, “genuine and caring” when commenting about her mother, but she asked him not to continue as the subject upset her.

Ms Shaw suggested Ms Bonaros “had at no stage” asked Mr Duluk to “take his arm away” after placing it around her.

“You never actually told him to stop,” she suggested.

Ms Bonaros replied: “I was trying to move away from these situations with Mr Duluk … I don’t think I said words to that effect, no.”

She rejected Ms Shaw’s suggestion that ice had been thrown around the area during the party, not placed down her dress by Mr Duluk.

Asked if she remembered people laughing about ice being thrown, Ms Bonaros replied: “I don’t recall anyone laughing, I was too busy dealing with someone putting ice down my dress.”

She also rejected Ms Shaw’s suggestion the “whack” happened before the dancing, saying she was “clear” on that part of the evening’s “chronology”.

Ms Shaw suggested Ms Bonaros had originally told police that, once “whacked”, she had “grabbed Mr Duluk” with two hands “to move him toward the chairs”, and later changed her evidence.

“Has anyone suggested to you that, if you deliberately grabbed him with two hands and turned him toward the two chairs, that might be considered an offence of assault?” she asked.

Ms Bonaros replied: “No.”

Ms Shaw suggested events had not unfolded the way Ms Bonaros claimed.

“I suggest you and Mr Duluk were walking side-by-side and, during the course of that, he patted you on the backside … that was the only contact as far as your backside was concerned,” she said.

“There was no physical contact with you and Mr Duluk as everyone was cleaning up.”

Ms Bonaros replied: “I don’t accept that, that’s not correct.”

THE EYEWITNESS

The court also heard evidence from Emily Bird who was, in 2019, office manager for Greens MLC Mark Parnell.

“I had gone to the toilet and, as I emerged, Mr Duluk was walking past with Ms Bonaros,” she said.

“I saw his arm come out and touch her on the bottom … it didn’t look like a grab, I could not tell if it was a touch or a pat … it was not something I expected to see.”

Ms Bird said she saw Mr Duluk drinking alcohol directly from bottles and trying go lift her in a chair.

She said she saw Mr Duluk “taking some ice and throwing it” and Ms Bonaros “moving away so he was not able to put it down her dress”.

Ms Bird said the touching incident occurred after games had been played at the party, but before the music started for dancing.

After Ms Bird’s evidence, Ms Shaw objected to the calling of any more witnesses.

She said the case turned on comparisons between the evidence of Ms Bonaros and Ms Bird.

“Police opened this trial on the basis that the incident described by both is the same incident,” she said.

“On the basis of those two witnesses, Your Honour cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt because of the conflict between them.

“Their descriptions of the alleged incident are markedly different.”

The trial, before Magistrate John Wells, continues.