Burlesque boss Tim Rowland not guilty in sexsomnia case

Tim Rowland, who was accused of raping a woman in his Sydney apartment, has been acquitted after arguing he was asleep at the time of the alleged assault.

Tim Rowland has been acquitted after successfully proving he was asleep at the time of an alleged sexual assault.

A burlesque boss accused of raping a woman in his Sydney apartment has been acquitted after arguing he suffered from an episode of sexsomnia at the time of the alleged attack.

Tim Rowland let out a deep breath and started sobbing when a jury returned a not guilty verdict on Thursday afternoon, after a day of deliberations in the NSW District Court.

Judge John Pickering awarded Mr Rowland costs for the case, saying it was “troubling” that someone “was put on trial with absolutely no prospect at all they could have been convicted”.

The alleged attack

Mr Rowland, the part-owner of Sydney burlesque club The Bamboozle Room, was charged in February 2023 for allegedly raping a woman in his Darlinghurst apartment in August the year prior.

The Crown alleged Mr Rowland was “awake and aware” he was having sex with the woman, while lawyers for Mr Rowland claimed he was suffering from an episode of sexsomnia - a disorder in which one has sex in their sleep - and did not have control over his body.

Both parties and two psychiatric experts agreed Mr Rowland likely suffered from sexsomnia, but it was up to the jury to decide whether he had an episode on the night of the alleged sexual assault, or whether he was conscious of his actions.

The court heard that on August 25, 2022, the woman and Mr Rowland attended a burlesque show together in Surry Hills.

Giving evidence during the trial, the complainant said she had wanted to stay at the show longer, but Mr Rowland wanted to go home. After getting an Uber to his apartment, Mr Rowland played his guitar and she sang. They both drank alcohol.

Mr Rowland cried when acquitted on rape charges. Picture: Supplied

The woman said they then undressed and had a 15-minute bath together, before she got out and wrapped herself in a towel. She told the court she didn’t remember getting into bed, but woke up to Mr Rowland “having sex with me”.

“I stood - pushed Tim off me really quickly and stood up and started looking for my boiler suit that I was wearing the night before to get dressed and leave,” she said.

“I looked at the bed and when I had pushed Tim away he had rolled on to his left-hand side, and he was making, like, sleeping, grunting noises, like, that seemed like fake noises to me as far as I was concerned Tim looked like he was awake, and it looked like he was pretending to be asleep.”

A ‘history’ of sexsomnia

The court heard Mr Rowland had a “history” of sexsomnia, despite not being formally diagnosed until November last year, and attempted sexual acts on two past partners in his sleep.

Neither former partner was called as a witness during trial, but both were interviewed by an expert psychiatrist who gave evidence. In cross-examination, the complainant said she had met with one of the ex-partners who told her she had woken to Mr Rowland “violently holding her down” to have sex with her.

Anthony Ellis, an expert called by the prosecution, told the court it was possible Mr Rowland had a sexsomnia episode on the night of the alleged attack, even if one only accepted the complainant’s version of events.

Psychiatrist Anthony Fernando, called by the defence, agreed, saying “the story is still very consistent with sexsomnia” even when taking into account the complainant’s recollection.

Ms Scoufis argued there was a “perfect storm” of triggers - including alcohol consumption and untreated sleep apnea - on the night of the alleged attack, which caused Mr Rowland to have an episode of sexsomnia.

She said Mr Rowland had warned the complainant of his condition, including telling her “I do some f..ked up things in my sleep”.

Ms Scoufis told the jury it was not the defence case that the woman was lying about the incident, but “truthful people can genuinely believe everything they are saying and be wrong”.

“I am not standing there and telling you she lied to you. That is not the defence case,” she said. “She clearly believed what she said, but that is not enough for proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

In her closing remarks, Ms Scoufis criticised the police and prosecutors for knowing about Mr Rowland’s history of sexsomnia and doing “almost nothing” about it during their investigations.

She referenced tapped phone calls from January 2023 - obtained by police before Mr Rowland was charged the following month - in which he told his mother and aunt “about his sleep condition where he has sex in his sleep”.

“The prosecution and the police have known about the accused’s issue of having sex in his sleep since at least January 30 … because of his phone calls, because of that way he raised it,” she said.

“What did the police do? Almost nothing.”

An unusual defence

In his summing up, judge John Pickering urged the jury to consider the evidence before them, and not become distracted by the unusual defence.

“If you walked around and asked people outside ... they’d tell you something like I don’t even believe it. It’s a load of crap,” he said.

“Well, that’s fine if you want to walk around the pub and say that, walk around the street and say that.

“But here in courts we act on evidence.

“In this trial, there is no issues whatsoever that the condition exists, and there is actually no issue in the trial that he suffers from that condition. (The issue is) whether he suffered an episode on the occasion of the indictment.”

Judge Pickering said there was “no dispute” that the complainant was asleep at the time of the alleged attack, and therefore did not consent. However, he said “that doesn’t make it criminal”.

“You’d be hardly a human being if you didn’t have sympathy for her, irrespective of whether the crown can prove this case or not,” he said.

“No one should have to wake up to someone having sex with them without their consent. But that doesn’t make it criminal. That doesn’t mean the crown proved its case.”

Judge Pickering thanked the jury for their verdict, and said although what happened didn’t amount to a criminal offence, it was “awful”. He criticised Mr Rowland for “turning any of the blame” on the complainant, saying “he didn’t do himself any favours at all”.

While Judge Pickering made “no personal criticism” of the prosecution’s decision to run the case, he said it was “troubling” that “someone was put on trial with absolutely no prospect at all they could have been convicted”.

When awarding a costs certificate, Judge Pickering must determine whether it was unreasonable for a “hypothetical prosecutor” to run the case, if they were in possession of all the facts in the case.

Judge Pickering said there was “no evidence he was awake at the time” of the assault, but that observation was made “by me, with the benefit of seeing all the evidence”.