Sam Duluk will not give evidence at his trial for allegedly assaulting Connie Bonaros, as court hears she failed to tell police of photo

A photo taken on the night Sam Duluk allegedly assaulted fellow MP Connie Bonaros, and that became the focus of cross-examination at his trial, has been released by the court.

Independent MP Sam Duluk must wait six weeks to learn if a court will find him not guilty of assaulting fellow MP Connie Bonaros after electing not to give evidence in his own trial.

On Wednesday, the Adelaide Magistrates Court was urged by Mr Duluk’s counsel to acquit him, saying Ms Bonaros’ evidence could not be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.

Meanwhile, the court has released a photo of Ms Bonaros, Mr Duluk and Labor MLC Justin Hanson taken at the party and tendered during the trial.

The photo became the source of much debate during cross-examination, focusing on the mood of the persons pictured and whether it had been taken before or after the alleged assault.

The court also heard police learnt only three weeks ago the photo had been taken of the trio, and that police “had not been advised” of the photo’s existence by Ms Bonaros when she was interviewed over two days to give her statement.

Instead, the court heard, police found the image – sent to Ms Bonaros on December 13, 2019 – while searching her mobile phone in order to answer questions raised by Mr Duluk’s legal team.

THE PHOTO

The photo was the subject of extended cross-examination when Ms Bonaros gave evidence on Tuesday.

She denied defence counsel Marie Shaw QC’s assertions she had received it via text message, and replied to the sender that she did not want it “to see the light of day”.

Labor MLC Justin Hanson, SA Best MLC Connie Bonaros and former Liberal MP Sam Duluk during the 2019 Christmas party at which Mr Duluk allegedly assaulted Ms Bonaros. Ms Bonaros alleges this was at the beginning of the escalating harassment by Mr Duluk. Source: Adelaide Magistrates Court

On Wednesday, after several hours of closed-door discussions between counsel, prosecution and defence tendered a statement of agreed facts to the court.

It said Ms Bonaros gave her statement to police on February 3 and 4, 2020, and did not “tell police about” the photo or the context in which it had been taken.

“The investigating officer was unaware of (the photo) until he discovered it after May 11, 2021, when he conducted his analysis of the extraction taken from Ms Bonaros’ mobile phone in response to defence’s request for disclosure of relevant text messages,” it says.

“He had not been advised by Ms Bonaros and was unaware that the photo had been sent to her on December 13, 2019, at 8pm before he found the photo and text message by which it was sent.”

The statement also said no police officer had approached the sender of the photo to conduct an interview.

THE ALLEGED ASSAULT

Mr Duluk, 37, has pleaded not guilty to one basic count of assault arising from an alleged incident at a 2019 Christmas party.

It is alleged he assaulted Ms Bonaros by placing an arm around her waist and slapping her on the bottom.

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.

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

On Monday, Ms Bonaros told the court the assault came at the end of Mr Duluk’s escalating course of drunken, humiliating behaviour at the party.

An eyewitness, however, told the court she saw Mr Duluk “touch or pat” Ms Bonaros on the bottom earlier in the evening.

Counsel for Mr Duluk claim the accounts are so “markedly different” that the court cannot be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, an assault was committed.

SA Best MLC Connie Bonaros. Picture: Mark Brake.

THE WITNESS STATEMENTS

On Wednesday, prosecution and defence counsel agreed no further witnesses needed to be called.

Instead, their statements were tendered – but in a redacted form.

Only their observations of Mr Duluk’s behaviour were included, not their evidence concerning Ms Bonaros’ reactions to any incidents.

In her closing address, police prosecutor Anika Francis conceded there were “some inconsistencies” between the accounts of Ms Bonaros and the eyewitness.

However, she said Ms Bonaros had frankly admitted she could not recall the order in which events occurred that afternoon and evening.

“The inconsistencies are not such that the court cannot be satisfied that the allegation occurred,” she said.

She asked the court to accept both Ms Bonaros and the eyewitness as “confident, honest, open and reliable” witnesses.

Sam Duluk outside court. Picture: NCA Newswire/Dean Martin.

“An open-handed pat, and a slap or a whack, is simply a matter of interpretation,” she said.

“The description given by the eyewitness is not inconsistent with that given by Ms Bonaros … both describe what can only be intentional contact with Ms Bonaros’ bottom.

“Outside of the sporting arena perhaps, the slapping, grabbing, touching or pinching of someone on the bottom is simply not a normal social interaction.”

She said Ms Bonaros had not wanted the entire case to “see the light of day” and that, regardless of when the photo was found by police, she had willingly handed over her phone.

Ms Shaw agreed the eyewitness was truthful, reliable and should be accepted by the court.

However, she said that meant the evidence of Ms Bonaros could not be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.

“The evidence of the eyewitness demonstrates that Your Honour should have reasonable doubt about the evidence of Ms Bonaros,” she said.

“The evidence of the eyewitness is not able to be reconciled with the evidence of Ms Bonaros.

“The prosecution says what Ms Bonaros has described is the same incident the eyewitness witnessed – that’s the case.

“There’s been no suggestion it’s not the same incident, the prosecution has nailed its colours to the mast.”

Ms Shaw said the trial was a “quite unusual” one.

“Ordinarily, the challenge (to an alleged victim’s evidence) is coming from the defence,” she said.

“In this case, it’s coming from other prosecution witnesses who are said to be reliable.”

She said the inconsistencies in the evidence were “a sign” Ms Bonaros was “unreliable”.

“We don’t have to put forward an explanation as to why she was unreliable and are not making any submission on that topic,” she said.

Magistrate John Wells will hand down his verdict on July 15.