Wayne Robert Green appeals conviction after being convicted for raping British backpacker

A farmer jailed for raping a British backpacker claims the pair had a “transactional” agreement regarding sex.

A Queensland farmer who was jailed for raping a British backpacker is appealing his conviction by claiming the pair had an agreement where sex would be exchanged for her visa and farm work payment

Wayne Robert Green was found guilty by a jury in the District Court in Kingaroy of one count each of procuring a sexual act by intimidation and rape in May 2024.

The jury found Green had assaulted and raped a then 21-year-old UK woman while she worked on his Mondure farm, near Murgon, in South Burnett – about 250km northwest of Brisbane.

South Burnett farmer Wayne Robert Green was found guilty of raping a British backpacker.

During the trial, the prosecution successfully argued the woman performed oral sex after Green threatened not to sign her visa paperwork or pay her for her farm work unless she agreed to have sex with him.

Green was sentenced to 3½ years in prison.

He has since lodged an appeal, which was heard before the Court of Appeal on Thursday, against his conviction.

His barrister, Saul Holt KC, told the court there was a miscarriage of justice at his client’s trial because there was contradictory evidence from the complainant about the conversation she’d had with Green.

The court was told the woman and Green had a conversation while they were both naked and intoxicated in the house about an agreement between the pair.

The court was told Green told the woman he would sign off on her visa paperwork and pay her for her farm work in exchange for sexual acts.

During trial, the jury heard evidence the woman later performed oral sex on Green out of fear or intimidation she would lose her visa or not get paid for her farm work.

Mr Holt said this conversation or agreement between Green and the woman was not tested accordingly at trial.

He pleaded not guilty to all charges before his 2024 trial.

He argued that it was simply a transaction and Green did not initiate the woman into performing those acts.

“The issue of what was actually said on the first occasion, which the comment includes a paraphrase, was live and incredibly important,” he said.

Mr Holt said the woman gave “contradictory” evidence about the conversation, on one occasion explaining that if she “wanted to stay on the farm”, Green would “sign off” on her visa if she performed sexual acts with him.

“It’s is quite a long way from ‘I would lose my job if I didn’t perform oral sex’,” Mr Holt said.

“Ultimately, it’s the intimidation aspect that ends up looming large.

“She also described of course at times … it was disgraceful for him (Green) to be saying these things as an employer.

“The idea of intimidation has a subjective and objective component.”

Justice John Bond said the Court of Appeal would need to consider whether the “line” was crossed to determine whether the woman was ultimately intimidated into performing oral sex.

“Obviously, there’s a line to be drawn,” Justice Bond said.

“It’s to my mind what I call immoral.

“It’s disgraceful behaviour at his age to say to a 21-year-old ‘I’ll pay money if you do these sexual things for me’, but if that’s all it was and she said yes, then I’m not sure where to go.

“However, one can see if other ingredients are added into the behaviour which might otherwise have been merely immoral and transactional, other than it being added into it, there must be a line where it really does become intimidation.

“The other argument is that in the physical circumstances the young woman found herself and in circumstances the accused knows of her financial and visa circumstances and says ‘if you don’t do this, I’m not going to sign off, you’re not going to get your payment’, and you’re basically in a diabolical situation, that might get to her being faced with initiation.”

He lodged his appeal at the Queensland Court of Appeal. Picture: NewsWire

Crown prosecutor David Nardone said the jury were told to look at the woman’s evidence as a whole and not just the specific conversation where Green and the woman discussed her visa and payment.

“The picture that generates throughout the complaint … is a level of intimidation that commenced right from when they … (had) telephone conversations before getting the job and right through her time in the job,” Mr Nardone said.

“If the jury accepted there was this plan or this process of intimidation of the complainant from the very beginning, then the existence of that would answer the elements of count 1 and 3 (of the appeal).

“It’s a line that needed to be answered by the jury, and with all the evidence before them, and it’s a line they drew.”

The court was told another ground for appeal was the complainant had given her evidence via video link from the UK, with her evidence lasting several hours throughout the night.

Mr Holt said the jury were aware the complainant was giving evidence until about 6.30am in the UK, and this could have led to the jury sympathising with her because she was up all night.

Justice Bond, Justice James Henry and Acting Justice Robert Gotterson have reserved their decision.

Originally published as Wayne Robert Green appeals conviction after being convicted for raping British backpacker