The testimony of an alleged rape victim has been scrutinised in Melbourne's county court, where defence counsel claimed she could have fabricated her story for financial gain. However, prosecutors argue that any inconsistencies in her account instead strengthen her credibility.
The unnamed man accused of the crime is facing two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The alleged incidents reportedly took place in March 2023, following a night where the woman claims she was drinking and taking cocaine with him at his home.
According to the prosecution, the woman, who is a former personal assistant to the accused, alleges that she was kissed and sexually assaulted by him before being raped twice. The accused chose not to give evidence during the trial, while the alleged victim provided her testimony in private court proceedings.
Dermot Dann KC, representing the accused, has consistently argued that the alleged offences never occurred. However, prosecutors countered this claim in their closing address to the jury, highlighting six key aspects of the case, including the complainant's evidence and her interactions with police on the night of the alleged incident.
Prosecutor Matthew Fisher acknowledged that trauma can impact memory, often leading to discrepancies in accounts of sexual assault. However, he noted that the complainant's core description of events remained consistent across multiple statements made within 24 hours of the alleged incident.
Fisher challenged the notion that the complainant was motivated by financial gain or a desire to harm the accused. He argued that if she had fabricated her story, it would have been more consistent and clear from the outset, rather than showing minor discrepancies and complexities in her personality during her testimony.
The trial also explored the complainant's past interactions with police, including a 2022 complaint against an officer, which contributed to her initial reluctance to report the alleged rape. Fisher criticised the evidence of Detective Senior Constable David Barlow, suggesting that his testimony was unreliable and may have been influenced by bias.
The jury is now tasked with weighing the complex evidence presented in court, including the complainant's testimony and the disputed interactions between police officers and the accused.