Jack Bannerman: Closing arguments made in trial over alleged sexual assault at Holsworthy Barracks

The jury will deliberate whether or not an army cadet is guilty of sexually assaulting a fellow cadet at the Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney’s southwest.

A suspended army cadet facing trial is guilty of a “moral wrong” for cheating on his girlfriend but he is not guilty of sexual assault, a court has heard.

Jack Bannerman, 20, is on trial after pleading not guilty to one count of sexual assault after the alleged sexual assault of a fellow cadet at Holsworthy Defence Barracks in February, 2021.

It was revealed in court last year that he has been suspended from the army after the charge was laid. In court on Thursday, the prosecution and defence made their closing arguments in front of a jury of 12.

Crown prosecutor Cassandra Hurford said it was their case that Bannerman had sexual intercourse with the alleged victim without her consent. She told the court that what Bannerman said about that night is evidence the jury would not accept.

“[The alleged victim] didn‘t consent, in my submission, to any of it,” Ms Hurford said.

“The crown case is the accused had actual knowledge that [the alleged victim] was not consenting or at the very least he was reckless to whether she consented.”

Ms Hurford said a message from Bannerman apologising and asking her not to tell anyone about what had happened “even those you trust” was an acknowledgment that he “took things too far with [the alleged victim] and he knew it”.

Jack Bannerman is on trial at Downing Centre for the alleged sexual assault of a fellow cadet at Holsworthy Defence Barracks. Pictured here leaving Campbelltown Court on May 2, 2022. Picture: Annie Lewis

She described the alleged victim as a “compelling witness” and the jury might have noted the “anguish” on her face when giving evidence.

“At the end of the day, it is a matter for the 12 of you what you make of the evidence,” Ms Hurford said.

“The 12 of you are the fact finders in the case.”

Defence barrister Alan Hands said the jury was faced with two “diametrically opposed accounts” of what took place in the alleged victim’s room on the night of February 23, adding they had to decide whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lawyer told the court that the alleged victim “liked” Bannerman and there was evidence of that in the way she referenced a meeting with him in her calendar as a “cute date”.

He said the sex was consensual and they both engaged in it while knowing that Bannerman had a girlfriend.

“She has initiated it. She goes to the bathroom and gets a condom, she places it on his penis and she straddles him … they then move to the floor and he is still underneath,” Mr Hands said.

Jack Bannerman.

“They swap positions ... and he notices she has gone very quiet ... he says ‘hello, hello’ or words to that effect. He takes his penis out and does not reinsert it until she gives him consent to do so.

“He is a responsive sexual partner ... he knows and takes into account her wishes.”

Mr Hands said Bannerman was “guilty of a moral wrong” for cheating on his girlfriend and lying about what her position would be on it, but that he is not guilty of this offence.

“[The alleged victim] had second thoughts about this and when my client apologised he let her off the hook,” he said.

“She was party to my client cheating ... when she thought about it she felt awful … her moral compass wasn't true north she rationalised ‘we have done the wrong thing, I am going to blame him’.”

Jack Bannerman.

Mr Hands said the prosecution thought the message from his client to the alleged victim was their “ace” but it’s just the alleged victim’s “cue to shift the blame to” Bannerman.

He said his client had maintained his position that the sexual intercourse was consensual since he first agreed to an interview with police, which he was not obligated to do.

Mr Hands said Bannerman had no prior convictions, adding that this matter was about a consensual sexual encounter.

“Almost immediately they both regret what they have done not because it’s legally wrong but because it was morally wrong,” he said.

“The crown have not proved the requisite standard that my client had sexual intercourse with [the alleged victim] without her consent.”

The jury have now retired to deliberate the matter before returning their verdict to Judge Penelope Hock.