Alan Jones Trial: Driver Tells Court of Unwanted Kiss in Casino Suite
A young man who once worked as a driver for Alan Jones told a Sydney court on 17 August 2026 that the broadcaster kissed him inside a walk-in wardrobe in James Packer's personal suite at Crown Towers Melbourne, in the early 2010s. He said Jones had lured him away from a friend with an offer to "take you on a tour" of the suite.
The witness, identified as Complainant C, gave emotional evidence at Jones's trial at Sydney's Downing Centre local court. Jones, the former radio host, has pleaded not guilty to 20 indecent assault charges and two counts of sexual touching. The trial's first alleged victim had already given evidence on day one, which concluded on 10 August 2026 (9News).
An indecent assault charge covers unwanted sexual contact that falls short of more serious sexual offences. Sexual touching is a similar offence under New South Wales law, typically involving deliberate, unwarranted physical contact of a sexual nature.
C told the court he and a friend had visited Melbourne for a sporting event and went to Jones's room for a drink. He knew the room was "nice" because it belonged to Packer, then executive chairman of Crown Resorts. Packer is not accused of any wrongdoing in relation to the allegations. A butler offered the younger men drinks while Jones watched Wimbledon on television, and they sat together on a couch drinking beer.
According to C's testimony, Jones then offered to show him around the suite alone, saying "Come on [C] I'll take you on a tour," leaving C's friend behind in the lounge room. Inside the walk-in wardrobe, C testified that Jones said "I've missed you" and then "kissed me." C said he pushed Jones back with two hands and said "Let's go back to [my friend]." The court heard Jones stopped what he was doing and the two men returned to the lounge room.
C's testimony extended well beyond the Crown Towers incident. He said "romantic" and "intimate" text messages from Jones continued for years after he left 2GB radio, along the lines of "I miss you very much, love you darling." He told the court he felt pressured to invite Jones to his wedding to remain in Jones's favour, a dynamic he said persisted long after the professional relationship ended.
The court also heard about the chain of disclosure, meaning how and when C shared his account with others. C said he told friends and family about the abuse once he had stopped working for Jones. In October 2019, 2GB broadcaster Ray Hadley told C that journalist Peter FitzSimons was researching a story about Jones. C agreed to speak with FitzSimons on the condition he not be identified, and later also spoke with journalist Kate McClymont at the Sydney Morning Herald.
One exchange captured how the allegations intersected with C's personal life. He told the court he disclosed the abuse to his father-in-law after the father-in-law suggested MeToo victims were motivated by money. The father-in-law's response, according to C: "I am so sorry."
The broader context here is a criminal trial testing allegations against one of the most influential figures in Australian media history. Jones's not-guilty plea across 22 charges means the prosecution must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt on each count, a standard familiar from criminal proceedings: the evidence must be convincing enough that no logical person could reasonably doubt the defendant's guilt. The defence will scrutinise the complainants' motivations, the timing of their disclosures, and the years-long gaps between the alleged events and public reporting. C's evidence touches several pressure points the defence is likely to probe: the conditional approach to journalists, the extended period of continued contact with Jones, and the role of a high-profile MeToo conversation in prompting disclosure to family. How the magistrate weighs these factors against the consistency and specificity of the testimony will shape the trajectory of the committal proceedings, which determine whether the case proceeds to a higher court for trial, or any verdict that follows.
