A high-profile Melbourne businessman is facing a lengthy jail term after being found guilty of raping a young woman in his home.
The man, sitting in the dock with his eyes closed and hands clasped on his lap, threw his head back in shock when a County Court jury returned verdicts of guilty on two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault on Tuesday.
Wearing a suit with a light blue tie, the man’s jaw dropped each time the lead juror said “guilty”.
Within 12 minutes of the verdicts being delivered, the convicted rapist was being taken into custody for what will be his first night behind bars.
His legal team could be seen consoling him, with one overheard saying: “It’s a total disgrace.”
They also told the custody officers to “look after him”.
His barrister Dermot Dann, KC, later indicated they were looking at their legal options, including whether “this should be one of those rare cases” where they apply for a stay on sentencing, to secure the man’s release.
“We do feel a great miscarriage of justice has occurred,” Mr Dann said.
It comes after a two-week trial heard how the man took advantage of the woman while she was drunk and under the influence of cocaine.
He vehemently fought the allegations from the moment he was charged in August 2023, maintaining they “never happened”.
The man has been able to have his case proceed through the courts for the past three years under a cloak of anonymity to protect his mental health and safety.
A suppression order — made on the same basis as convicted rapist Tom Silvagni — prohibits us from publishing his name, age and occupation.
The order was set to lift on verdicts being delivered.
But the well-connected man’s legal counsel has made moves to extend it.
The Herald Sun plans to fight their bid to keep his name secret at a later date.
The jury heard his victim testify that she was working for the man and how she had repeatedly rejected his advances in the months leading up to him raping and sexually assaulting her at his home on March 24, 2023.
The pair had earlier that evening been at one of his friends’ places to watch a football game.
The friend told the court he observed the woman as “happy” and “relaxed” while drinking wine.
He also noticed she had her hand on the accused’s leg while sitting on the couch — a move she explained as simply trying to calm down the man who was becoming agitated over the footy game.
But his friend only recalled him as being sleepy throughout the game, claiming he woke him towards full-time as he kept nodding off.
The victim and the man left together about 10.30pm and went back to his house, where the complainant said they drank more alcohol and took cocaine together.
She said she became emotional and confided in him about a relationship breakdown.
He then hugged her and told her he would “take care of her”, before kissing her and touching her breasts and buttocks.
When she pushed him away, she claims he replied: “You are so sexy, I can’t stop.”
While she cried into a pillow on his bed, she said the man put his hands inside her pants and penetrated her.
He then undid his pants and penetrated her with his penis.
She reacted by punching him in the face.
“You’re a f–king rapist,” she told him.
Defence counsel Dermot Dann, KC, said his client denied everything from the sexual assaults to partaking in cocaine with her when back at his house.
He detailed the accused’s good character and how he had no criminal priors, while attacking the complainant’s credibility, saying she was financially motivated to make up the allegations.
The court heard she had told a cousin she would “take this man for all that he’s worth”.
She had also spoke about initiating civil action against him, saying “she had six legal teams” working on it including the lawyers who represented Australian activist and child sexual abuse survivor Grace Tame.
Mr Dann called to the witness box two police officers who had previously arrested the complainant over a drink-driving incident in 2019 to show she had a tendency to be dishonest and provide a false statements.
Those officers detailed how she was “obnoxious” and “using disgusting language” while spitting and threatening to get a family member, who was a lawyer, to take their badges.
She had been stopped because she was seen driving the wrong side of the road with no headlights at 4am. She registered a blood alcohol reading of .181 per cent.
Back at the station, she started slapping herself in the face and saying she was going to blame the police for causing the injuries to her, the officers stated.
The court heard she later made a formal complaint that one of the officers told her: “I love getting little sluts like you off the road”.
An internal investigation found the complaint could not be substantiated and no action was taken against the officers.
The prosecution had fought hard in a pre-trial hearing to have the evidence of the two police officers thrown out, labelling it a “distraction” for the jury.
But it was ruled admissible.
In another major win for the accused in December, his lawyers were able to have DNA evidence the prosecution wanted to use in its case thrown out.
The jury never heard the results of an early evidence kit, in which the complainant took the swabs from her vagina herself in a bathroom at a police station.
It could not be certain if the complainant followed the steps correctly or used the gloves provided.
Two male profiles were found in the sample, with defence counsel arguing it could be concluded the DNA was from an indirect or secondary transfer from other social contact.
County Court judge Frank Gucciardo disagreed with the prosecution’s view that the jury could draw “a very strong inference” from the evidence.
Judge Gucciardo said the way the test was conducted meant it’s probative value is “outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused”.
“The jury could not properly use the evidence rationally,” Judge Gucciardo ruled.
The early evidence kit was done because the complainant was deemed too drunk to give consent to undergo an examination by a forensic medical officer.
“The complainant was asked to sign a consent form as part of the EEK process, which would appear contrary to the view of her capacity to sign a consent form for a forensic medical exam,” Judge Gucciardo said.
In another blunder, the carefree way the accused man’s clothes were also collected by police meant any DNA evidence on them was inadmissable.
The man was asked by an officer to fetch the clothes — including a pair of jeans and underpants — out of his washing machine and put them in paper evidence bags without any gloves.
The court heard a DNA profile found on the accused’s underpants was “one million times” more likely to be contributed by the complainant.
“The underpants were mixed together with other items in the washing machine,” Judge Gucciardo said, adding secondary transfer was possible given the social interactions between the pair earlier that evening, and the fact they had also used the same toilet.
The officer did not check what other clothes items were in the full machine.
Even the prosecution conceded the way the clothing was retrieved was “not best practice”.
It meant the prosecution case was largely hinging on the word of the complainant, which was heard in closed court.
But later comments by Mr Dann in the trial indicated she was “laughing” throughout her testimony, and had inconsistencies in her version of events.
Judge Gucciardo warned the jury not to read too much into the complainant’s demeanour.
He said that giving evidence in a trial is not common for most people and “may be indeed a very stressful experience”.
“Truthful witnesses may make mistakes about details,” he said.
Mr Fisher also rejected defence suggestions the victim had any ulterior motive.
He told the court she went to police in the immediate hours after the alleged rapes, so “how on Earth does that assist her in getting money from the accused?”
Despite having no DNA evidence before them, the jury were convinced beyond reasonable doubt the man had committed the crimes.
Rape carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail, while sexual assault is up to 10 years.
A hearing will be set down for the prosecution and defence to outline sentencing submissions, before Judge Gucciardo sentences the man at a later date.