Closing arguments outlined in high-profile rape trial
The barrister for a high-profile man who allegedly raped a woman in a Melbourne house says a 17-minute window discussed in the trial presents a “problem for the prosecution”, while the prosecutor says the accused should be convicted based on the complainant’s “consistent, cogent and compelling” evidence.
A prosecutor has urged a jury to convict a high-profile man of rape, declaring that the evidence from the complainant has been “consistent, cogent and compelling” from the start.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is standing trial in the County Court, accused of raping a woman twice inside a Melbourne home in January last year.
He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape, with his defence barrister David Hallowes SC urging the jury to accept his client’s evidence instead.
The closing addresses from the prosecution and defence were delivered before the 12-person jury on Tuesday as the two-week trial edges closer to completion.
Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams previously told the court the complainant attended the accused’s home late on a summer night after she was invited over by the accused’s girlfriend.
A boozy gathering had been hosted at the home that day, but only the accused, 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.
Mr B testified last week that he then left the bedroom to move his car, prior to catching an Uber, and did not recall returning to the bedroom at any stage that night.
At 1.58am, Mr B left in the Uber, arriving at his home at 2.09am.
After his departure, it is alleged that the accused crept into the bedroom and lied to the complainant, telling her the Uber had been cancelled and Mr B would be back upstairs soon.
The accused then left the room and re-entered, before allegedly sliding into bed with the complainant and pretending to be Mr B as he digitally penetrated her twice.
She claimed to have identified him as he left the bedroom because light was “coming in” from the hallway.
“(The accused) raped me,” Mr McWilliams said at the top of his address, quoting the complainant.
“She has consistently, from the minutes shortly after it happened through to giving evidence, maintained that statement is the truth to what happened to her.”
He said there was a 17-minute window between Mr B leaving in the Uber at 1.58am and the complainant messaging him at 2.15am – after the alleged rapes – to ask if he had headed home.
Mr McWilliams reminded the jury that the accused’s girlfriend said she was asleep during this 17-minute window and, as a result, could not testify that the accused “could not have done this”.
He said the jury should reject the accused’s denials and accept the complainant’s evidence, given her account was not simply that she was sexually touched in the bedroom.
“Her account includes … the conversation with (the accused) where he told her that the Uber had cancelled and (Mr B) was coming back,” he said.
Mr McWilliams added that the accused responded to the allegations by doctoring the Uber receipt, telling lies and “recruiting others” to tell lies so he could “shift the blame” from him to Mr B.
“You might think that were he not responsible for raping (the complainant) … there would be no need for any of these lies,” he said.
But Mr Hallowes said his client’s conduct boiled down to “one continuous lie” that was a “stupid lie but not a lie that shows he is guilty”.
He reiterated that the “critical question” in the trial was whether Mr B returned to the bedroom before catching the Uber.
He suggested that a person in Mr B’s position had a “powerful reason” to distance himself from the allegations and say he did not return to the bedroom that night.
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.
Mr Hallowes also claimed that the 17-minute window was a “problem for the prosecution”.
“If what happens is (the accused) lets (Mr B) out, comes back up, gets back into bed, (his girlfriend) is awake, he has to wait until she falls asleep, he has to extract himself from the bed without waking her up … then he has to go to the room (the complainant) is in and say the Uber cancelled … he’s got to wait a period of time, he’s then got to go back in, commit the offences as alleged, then come back out,” he said.
“All of those things have had to happen (in the 17 minutes).”
He added: “If he’s carrying out this deception and he’s going to pretend to be (Mr B), do you really think he’d leave the hallway light on?”
Mr Hallowes reminded the jury that his client chose to give evidence, instead of electing to remain silent.
“He chose to tell you what took place that night, what he did and what he didn’t do,” he said.
“He put himself into the witness box … to be cross-examined.
“He admitted the lies that he had told, but he told you he didn’t go into that room … he didn’t get into bed … he didn’t commit those offences that are alleged.
“We say you should accept his evidence.”
He concluded: “If you think there’s some reasonable possibility that he’s telling the truth, then you have to find him not guilty because, clearly, that’s a reasonable doubt.”
Judge Gregory Lyon is expected to deliver instructions to the jury on Wednesday before deliberations begin.
The trial continues.
*Not his real name
