South Australian MP’s alleged butt slap ‘no different’ to shoulder pat, court hears
A drunken MP accused of slapping a colleague on the butt argues he should be acquitted because it was ‘no different’ to a shoulder pat, a court hears.
The drunken MP who allegedly “loudly” slapped a colleague on the backside should be acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt because it was “no different” to a shoulder pat, a court has heard.
Sam Duluk, former Liberal and now independent MP, was charged with one count of basic assault after he allegedly slapped SA Best MLC Connie Bonaros on the bottom at a crossbench Christmas party at Parliament House.
The member for Waite previously pleaded not guilty to the charge.
During the first day of his trial, the Adelaide Magistrates Court heard the drunken MP gatecrashed the party on December 13, 2019 and allegedly assaulted Ms Bonaros in the corridor with his right hand.
Defence counsel Marie Shaw said while her client had “momentary contact” with Ms Bonaros’ bottom, she argued the alleged victim’s evidence should not be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.
She said the evidence of one witness, Emily Bird, was not able to be reconciled by Ms Bonaros and the prosecution had accepted the eyewitness was “credible and reliable”.
Ms Bird, who was the office manager for Greens MLC Mark Parnell in 2019, told the court on Tuesday she “couldn’t tell if it was a touch or a pat” and that Mr Duluk had a flat hand.
She motioned to the court that it was not a “whack” like Ms Bonaros claimed but looked like a hand was placed on her backside and there was no swing.
Ms Shaw told the court Ms Bird’s testimony demonstrated that his honour should have “reasonable doubt about the evidence on Ms Bonaros”.
The barrister and former judge suggested the touch on Ms Bonaros’ bottom was “no different” to a touch or pat on the shoulder.
“It’s simply a matter that depends on the circumstances and here … there was no swing back in terms of the hand coming back as suggested,” Ms Shaw said.
But Prosecutor Anika Francis argued slapping, grabbing, pinching or touching someone on the bottom was “not a normal social interaction”.
She said their case was that Mr Duluk slapped Ms Bonaros on the bottom without consent.
She argued the touching of another person’s backside was not behaviour accepted by society or something seen “outside of a sporting arena”.
“The defendant intentionally applied force to the victim without consent,” Ms Francis told the court in her closing remarks.
“The prosecution submission supports the view that Ms Bonaros looked uncomfortable in some of (her) interactions (with the accused).
“Witnesses observed her to be moving away from the defendant.
“The conduct described in the evidence is not conduct approved by the community in social interaction.”
The court also heard about other interactions Ms Bonaros had with Mr Duluk throughout the evening, including one where the defence claimed Ms Bonaros had her arms around the accused and posed in a photo taken at the Christmas Party, and she accepted his invitation to dance.
Ms Shaw reminded magistrate Jonathan Wells about an inconsistency where Ms Bonaros claimed Mr Duluk poured ice down the front of her dress.
She said Ms Bird’s evidence made it clear it was thrown — not poured down Ms Bonaros’ dress like she claimed — and that the alleged victim “moved away”.
After the court was closed for hours on Wednesday morning, counsel returned and delivered the facts of the case.
During the hearing, it was established that Ms Bonaros made her statement to police on February 3 and 4 last year.
On February 4, the alleged victim handed her phone over to authorities and told an officer about the photo that was on her phone with herself, Mr Duluk and Labor MLC Justin Hanson.
However, investigators did not discover the photo until May 11 this year while searching the phone in order to answer questions raised by the accused’s legal team.
The photo — which was a focus in cross examination the previous day — was sent to Ms Bonaros in a text message at 8.13pm on the night of the alleged incident.
Ms Shaw said her client, Mr Duluk, would not be giving evidence.
Listed witnesses Greens MLC Tammy Franks, Legislative Council clerk assistant Leslie Guy and Tina Woghiren were also not required to take the stand.
When Ms Bonaros gave her evidence on Tuesday, she said she told Mr Duluk to “sit the f—k down” after he allegedly slapped her.
During questioning, she told the court she also asked him: “Do you think because you’re some Liberal powerbroker you can do whatever you want?”
The prosecution accepted there were “some inconsistencies” in the evidence given by Ms Bonaros and Ms Bird but believed the charge still applied.
When discussing Ms Bird’s evidence — who witnessed the alleged assault — Ms Francis said Mr Duluk’s “open hand” she claimed to have seen was merely “an interpretation” of the events.
“Ms Bird saw Mr Duluk make contact with Ms Bonaros’ body … an open handed pat and the slap or a whack is on the prosecution’s submission an interpretation.”
The court heard other inconsistencies included the timeline of events and the alleged victim testimony that she did not know where Mr Duluk came from before he allegedly slapped her, as Ms Bird had said she saw them walking side-by-side in the corridor.
Ms Francis argued that Ms Bonaros stated on a number of occasions during her questioning that she could not recall the chronological order of events because it occurred more than a year ago.
“It is quite clear there were a number of things that occurred on this day over several hours — that inconstancy is not such that the court cannot be justified that the allegation occurred,” she said.
“There were a number of matters put to Ms Bonaros in respect to the photo of her, Mr Duluk and Mr Hanson … those matters don’t affect her credibility or liability as a witness.”
Magistrate Wells is yet to reach a verdict.
The matter has been adjourned until next month.