Jason Humphreys: Truckie who raped, assaulted woman from dating app appeals conviction

A truckie who helped his victim consume meth before raping her and then leaving her stranded has made a bid to have the convictions overturned.

Jason Humphreys.

A depraved molester who plied his victim with meth before violently raping her in the back of his truck and leaving her stranded has failed in a bid to appeal a guilty verdict.

Jason Humphreys, 42, was found guilty by a jury in 2021 and convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to jail for years and three months.

The Prestons man was found not guilty of three further counts of sexual intercourse without consent and of choking without consent. He was given a non-parole period of three years and two months to expire on January 3, 2024.

According to the facts in the 2021 sentencing, interstate truck driver Humphreys met the victim through “meetme.com”, picked her up from her Leichhardt home, and they agreed he would take her for a drive in his truck.

They drove to Eastern Creek, where Humphreys parked, and they entered the rear cabin of the truck, where he offered her meth. When she replied, “I don’t know how to do it”, he said, “You just suck, and I’ll do it for you”, before he helped her to consume the drug.

He had consensual sex with her before he anally raped the victim and pinned her down.

When she protested, Humphreys said: “All you women are the same. Youse (sic) are never satisfied”.

He then refused to drive her home and left her stranded, forcing her to seek help from a nearby security guard. Humphreys was later arrested at Panania.

An appeal hearing against the convictions was held in the Criminal Court of Appeal earlier this month where Humphreys claimed there were miscarriages of justice.

His legal team said the prosecutor invited the jury to engage in impermissible lines of reasoning when attacking the case for Humphreys during his closing submissions and when the prosecution tendered a certificate of blood analysis.

However, the appeal was dismissed on Wednesday. The court held that nothing said by the prosecution or the trial judge could give rise to a viable ground of appeal, and the remarks were not challenged at trial by Mr Humphrey’s counsel.

The court also held that the certificate could not have caused a forensic disadvantage.