Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty of rape after 10-day trial
A man from a high-profile Victorian family — who still cannot be named — faces years behind bars after being found guilty of rape following a 10-day trial.
A man from a high-profile Victorian family has wiped tears from his eyes and his mother has sobbed after a jury declared him guilty of rape.
The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted by a County Court jury on Friday of two counts of rape following a 10-day trial.
At the start of the week, the well-groomed man stepped from the dock to the witness box in a last-ditch bid to convince the jury that he was not the man who raped the complainant inside a Melbourne home in January last year.
But by the week’s end, the 12 jurors unanimously agreed that he did rape the complainant, rejecting the story he had spun not only them and her, but his own loved ones.
The jury delivered its verdict after two days of deliberations.
Wearing a suit and tie, the man started to wipe away tears after the verdict was handed down.
He covered his face with his quivering hands and sunk into his seat.
His mother gasped and broke down, turning around to look at her son in the dock with tears in her eyes.
During a short break, the man was comforted by his loved ones as he continued to sob.
His girlfriend, who began to feel light-headed, lay down across several chairs as she was tended to by court staff.
Now a convicted rapist, the man faces years behind bars.
The man was remanded in custody by Judge Gregory Lyon, despite his defence barrister David Hallowes SC arguing that his bail should be extended.
Before he was led down to the cells, Judge Lyon asked for the courtroom to be cleared so the man could “say goodbye” to his loved ones.
At the start of the trial, Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams declared that the man committed the rapes “not through threats, not through force … but rather through deception” by pretending to be his mate to trick the complainant.
Then, to cover up his crime, Mr McWilliams said the man deployed “even more deception” by doctoring an Uber receipt, telling lies and recruiting others to adopt his lies in a desperate attempt to “shift the blame”.
The jury, who had to navigate the complex “he said, she said” case, heard the complainant attended the man’s home late on a summer night after she was invited over by his girlfriend.
A boozy gathering had been hosted at the home that day, but only the man, his girlfriend and his mate, Mr B*, remained when the complainant arrived at 12.23am.
Mr McWilliams said the complainant, who was in a “casual sexual relationship” with Mr B, had consensual sex with him in an upstairs bedroom.
At 1.58am, Mr B left in the Uber, arriving at his home at 2.09am.
After his departure, the man crept into the bedroom and lied to the complainant, telling her the Uber had been cancelled and Mr B would be back upstairs soon.
Mr McWilliams said the man left the room and then re-entered again but, because it was dark, she assumed it was Mr B.
The jury found the man then slid into the bed behind the woman and digitally penetrated her, prompting her to say “wait, stop” before wriggling away.
Mr McWilliams said she became “very concerned” that it was the man in bed with her, prompting her to ask if he was Mr B.
“Yeah, it’s me, why wouldn’t it be?” he fiendishly asked.
Not convinced, she asked him to turn on his phone torch.
“He then put his hands on the complainant, took hold of her and put his fingers inside her vagina again,” Mr McWilliams said.
The jury heard she repeatedly asked him to stop as he pinned her down.
“Don’t worry, it’s (Mr B), it’s fine,” he told her.
Mr McWilliams said she knew it was him because he had a different haircut to Mr B, which she both felt and later saw as he ran from the bedroom to the light-filled hallway.
But he re-entered again soon after, feigning compassion.
“You OK, what’s happened?” he asked.
She replied: “You were just in here. I know it was you. You’re the only guy in the house.”
At 2.15am, she messaged Mr B, who confirmed he had arrived home.
The next day, the man used his laptop to alter the Uber receipt, changing the departure time from 1.58am to 2.37am and the arrival time from 2.09am to 2.57am to, effectively, place Mr B at the scene of the crime.
He also continued to peddle the lie that there had been a cancelled Uber.
He texted Mr B: “Just say you came into her room when your Uber cancelled, I don’t know what’s going on, but I just want to make sure (her) lies don’t f--k us up.”
In his opening address, Mr Hallowes said one of the “key issues” of the trial would be whether or not Mr B returned to the bedroom before catching the Uber.
But Mr B testified that after having consensual sex with the complainant, he left the bedroom to move his car before catching the Uber.
He told the jury he only recalled leaving the bedroom once and did not recall returning.
But the man and his girlfriend testified that they remembered Mr B entering their room to ask for a condom at some point that night, putting the two stories at odds with each other.
Mr Hallowes suggested that Mr B, despite his denials, did return to the room and digitally penetrate the complainant, but she was “mistaken” as to his identity.
He added that it was “curious” that Mr B left the home considering the complainant had been invited over to spend time with him.
“Is it because something went wrong?” he suggested.
But Mr McWilliams said the jurors should accept the complainant’s account, given it had been “consistent, cogent and compelling” from the start, urging them to reject the man’s denials, along with his girlfriend’s “tailored evidence”.
And, ultimately, they did, siding with the complainant and Mr B.
Judge Lyon thanked the jurors – nine men and three women – for their service.
But it can now be revealed that one of the jurors wanted to throw in the towel on day three.
Last week, Judge Lyon told the court the juror, described as having an “odd demeanour”, told court staff his car had been broken into at the train station while he was at jury service.
“He said that it occurred because he was here for jury service and he said he did not want to continue attending,” Judge Lyon said.
He recounted how the juror asked court staff: “Who will pay for my window?”
However, the court heard the juror had a change of heart and decided to stick it out.
The man will return to court for a pre-sentencing hearing next Friday before Judge Lyon sentences him at a later date.
*Not his real name
Originally published as Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty of rape after 10-day trial
