A rape trial began at Victoria's County Court on Wednesday involving a prominent Melbourne man whose identity is protected by court order. He pleads not guilty to two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault against a former personal assistant. The alleged offenses took place in March 2023 at the accused's home, according to reports from The Guardian and ABC News. The woman had worked for him in that capacity for several months in 2022.

The Crown's Account

Prosecutor Matthew Fisher outlined to the jury that on the night in question, the complainant and accused were drinking alcohol and using cocaine together at a friend's house while listening to music and watching football. Fisher told the court that the accused later initiated unwanted contact—attempting to kiss the woman and sexually assaulting her. When she pushed away his hands and said "I don't want this," he allegedly responded with "you're so sexy," "I can't sleep, help me," and "I need this." Fisher said the woman then experienced two instances of rape.

The Crown's narrative emphasizes what happened immediately afterward. The woman, still in bed, allegedly turned and punched the accused in the face hard enough to break his nose—he is said to have acknowledged this by saying "you've broken my nose." She then got out of bed and told him "you're a fucking rapist." She moved to another room, began recording notes on her phone, and texted her mother. Although reluctant to involve police herself, her mother made the call. An officer contacted the complainant around 3am on 24 March 2023; police arrived shortly after. Body-worn camera footage captured 35 minutes of the woman's exchange with attending officers and is expected to be shown to the jury.

Fisher also mentioned that the woman intends to testify about a pattern of prior conduct—that the accused had made earlier sexual advances toward her, and that she had previously warned him: "If I let you do this, if I let you fuck me, you will never respect me as your employee."

The Defence Response

Defence barrister Dermot Dann KC took a different approach in his opening, directly challenging the complainant's credibility. He told the jury she had "massive issues" with credibility and reliability, pointing to a previous allegation she had made against police that was later found to be false. Dann argued this prior false allegation explains why she initially hesitated to contact authorities after the alleged rapes—not because of trauma, he suggested, but as part of a pattern consistent with fabrication.

Dann also raised the timing of text messages. The woman had asked her mother about "recompense" (compensation) while still inside the accused's house that night, according to defence submissions. Dann framed this as evidence that she was already considering a negotiated settlement rather than a criminal complaint.

The Central Question

The trial's core issue has become clear from these competing openings. The Crown relies heavily on what the woman did in the immediate aftermath—the accusation, the note-taking, the body-camera recording—as evidence supporting her account. The defence is instead building its case around the woman's credibility history and the timing of her texts, arguing that ambivalence and talk of "recompense" suggest a motive other than reporting a genuine crime. The outcome may turn on how the jury weighs delay and apparent hesitation against physical evidence like the broken nose.

Victorian sexual-assault trials increasingly depend on body-worn-camera footage, which juries often treat as more reliable than witness testimony recalled months or years later.

On Anonymity

The suppression order protecting the accused's identity is routine in Victorian criminal cases involving prominent defendants, particularly where naming him could prejudice a fair trial or interfere with related civil or reputational proceedings. Such orders face periodic scrutiny from advocates of open justice, who argue the public has a right to know the identities of those accused of serious crimes. Courts in Victoria have consistently upheld anonymity where the risk of prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial outweighs the public interest in disclosure before verdict.

Reporting of the trial's opening day was consistent across outlets. ABC News confirmed the location of the alleged assault, while the Sydney Morning Herald reported the trial's start a day in advance. The proceedings continue, with the woman's testimony and cross-examination expected to be pivotal—including detailed questioning about the police footage and the disputed "recompense" texts.