A well-connected Melbourne man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault on 28 July 2026 (The Guardian). The verdict came after a three-week trial before Judge Frank Gucciardo. The prosecution was led by Matthew Fisher, and the defence by Dermot Dann KC.

The victim was the man's former personal assistant and employee. The offences took place in March 2023, after the two had spent an evening drinking and taking cocaine at a friend's home. According to The Guardian, the assaults happened at the man's own home, which matches earlier ABC News reporting (ABC News).

During the assault, the victim punched the man in the face and called him a rapist. She took notes of what was happening on her phone and texted her mother, who then called the police. Officers arrived at the property at around 3am on 24 March 2023.

The trial came down to two very different versions of what happened that night. The complainant — the person making the accusation — gave evidence over more than four days in a closed court (a court closed to the public to protect the privacy of those involved). She described the events of March 2023 in detail. The accused did not give evidence at his trial. The defence argued that no sexual contact had occurred between the man and the complainant at all. The jury did not believe that account and convicted him on all three charges.

The man had pleaded not guilty to all counts. ABC News reported on 8 July 2026 that the Melbourne businessman entered not-guilty pleas as the trial was beginning (ABC News).

The man's name has been kept secret throughout the case. His lawyers got a court order in December 2024 to stop his name from being published until the trial was over (ABC News). This is called a suppression order, and it is a common tool in Victoria's legal system for people whose cases attract a lot of public attention. The idea is that if too much is published about the accused before a verdict, it could make it hard for them to get a fair trial. Whether the order stays in place now that the trial is over will be decided by a judge, especially before sentencing.

After the jury found him guilty, the man's bail was cancelled and he was taken into custody. He remains in custody while waiting to be sentenced, which will happen at a later date before Judge Gucciardo.

The broader context here involves a few choices that shaped how this trial played out. The accused decided not to give evidence — meaning he did not take the stand to tell his side of the story. In Victoria, juries are told they cannot hold that against him, because people have the right to stay silent and not provide evidence that could be used against them. But in practice, when one person tells their story over four days and the other says nothing, jurors may still find the contrast hard to ignore, no matter what the judge tells them.

The defence also took an unusual approach. Instead of admitting that sexual contact happened but arguing that both people agreed to it, the defence said no sexual contact happened at all. That is a riskier strategy, because if the prosecution can prove even small details of the complainant's story are true, the whole denial falls apart. The verdict suggests the jury believed the complainant's version of events beyond reasonable doubt.

The victim's actions during and after the assault may have made a difference. By taking notes on her phone and texting her mother right away, she created a record of what happened in real time. Her mother calling the police, and officers arriving at the house that same night, meant there was a clear, immediate chain of events that is hard for a defence to challenge.

The man hired Dermot Dann KC, a very senior defence lawyer. People facing serious charges who can afford it often hire lawyers of this rank, reflecting both the resources they have and how serious the situation is.

The suppression order is still a point of public debate. Victoria's system tries to balance two things: the accused's right to a fair trial and the principle of open justice — the idea that courts should operate in public view so people can see justice being done. Now that the trial is over and the man has been found guilty, the main reason for keeping his name secret is weaker. But the court could keep the order in place if publishing his name might affect sentencing, or if there is another legal reason to do so. Until any suppression order is lifted, the man cannot be named.

In Victoria, the maximum sentence for rape is 25 years in prison for each count. The judge who sentences the man will consider factors like his criminal history, the circumstances of the offences, and statements from the victim about how the crimes affected her. Judge Gucciardo will set a date for the sentencing.