After a woman alleged she was raped by a high-profile Sydney man, she asked the police hypothetically if a video was found of the incident whether that could be played in court to “make out” it was “not an assault”, a court has heard.
Under cross-examination by David Scully SC, the woman – known as complainant three – was asked if she was concerned about a video because it would show “she was a liar”.
“No, that’s not correct,” she responded.
The questioning came after the court heard on Wednesday there was a tape of complainant three and the accused having sex for the first time when she was 19. Complainant three alleges the tape was filmed without her knowledge or consent. The woman told the court the pair had sex twice before he allegedly raped her.
On the first occasion, the complainant had told police she did not reciprocate in any way that indicated she wanted to have sex, and “waited for it to be over”, and that she felt similar in their second sexual encounter.
Scully suggested in a series of questions that during the first sexual encounter, of which there is video, she kissed the man back, reciprocated sexually and was audibly moaning.
The complainant responded to each question that she couldn’t “recall”, and later said: “This is something I have actively worked to forget so I’m sorry, I can’t remember specific details.”
The woman is the third complainant of six to appear before the New South Wales Downing Centre district court in a trial expected to last 10 weeks. She follows the second complainant who alleged the man indecently assaulted her, and the first complainant who alleged the man had raped her while she was his intern.
The man, who Guardian Australia cannot name due to a suppression order, is facing trial after pleading not guilty to 12 charges – which include six counts of rape – alleged to have occurred over a six-year period against six women on separate occasions. The crown is arguing the man had a tendency to carry out sexual conduct with usually much younger women, knowing that they did not consent or that he was reckless to their consent.
The man’s defence argues there was sex with the five women who have alleged he raped them. However, his defence argues, the sex was consensual, “not in the circumstances alleged by the crown”, and that the complainants “admired the accused, even idolised him”.
The woman told the court, under cross-examination, that she had come to the view after her three sexual encounters with the man that she had been “groomed”.
Asked by Scully if she felt during the first sexual encounter, of which there is video, that the same applied and that he had “abused his power”, the woman became visibly upset.
“I don’t know any more. I’m confused,” she said.
The woman told the court that there were “a few things” about her first sexual encounter with the man that she now remembered “quite differently” to “what I said initially” in her police statement. In particular, that the man didn’t use a condom after she asked him to. She told the court that she now remembered he did use a condom.
Asked if she was now changing her version of events because she knows what the video shows, she said she wasn’t and that she had only seen the first two minutes.
The complainant had sent messages to the man, the court heard, expressing her feelings for him, with one saying “every time we spend time together I fall for you a little more”.
Asked if she was falling in love with the accused, she said: “For a long time I did think that I had feelings for him, yes.”
Scully questioned communication the woman had with the man’s girlfriend, which she was adamant had occurred after her first sexual interaction with the accused, the court heard.
In one message, the court heard, the accused’s girlfriend at the time asked if complainant three would “mind not seeing him again”. The complainant agreed and told the man’s girlfriend she would block him on “everything”.
“But you did see him again?” asked Scully.
“Yes, I broke my promise,” she said.
“Is that because at that time you still had strong feelings for him,” he then asked.
“I think it is important to distinguish that they were perceived strong feelings,” she said.
Asked if, in the months after the man allegedly raped her their communication remained friendly, she said: “Yes, it was friendly.”
She later told the court that the tone in their messaging shifted to more “boundary-driven” than “friendly” when she “started to understand the grooming process and why I was still so willing to fawn over someone who had hurt me”.
Scully suggested to the woman that the second time she had sex with the man at his home, in which she alleged to the court she didn’t want to have sex but “didn’t say” no, that she didn’t go to his house at all and that she “invented” the entire incident. She disagreed.
For the third sexual encounter, where she alleges he raped her, Scully suggested that she did not say no, nor did she cry – as she has previously testified – and that there was “mutual kissing”.
“I disagree,” she responded.
On Wednesday, complainant three told the court that she had confronted the accused about raping her and that he had responded that “he didn’t mean to”. On Friday, Scully suggested there was no occasion in which she said “anything like you raped me” to the accused.
“I completely disagree with that statement, sir,” she responded.
Also on Wednesday, the complainant said she told the accused that she would not report the alleged rape to police if he went to rehab. On Friday, the defence suggested this conversation never happened, to which she disagreed.
He then suggested that she had become angry after learning that the accused had a girlfriend, and asked if she remembered sending a message to him saying, “I can’t believe you are doing this to me again.” She said she didn’t.
Scully suggested she was “still” trying to pursue a relationship with the accused around three years after their first sexual encounter.
“I disagree with that, sir,” she responded.
The trial continues on Monday.
