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

The complainant was the man's former personal assistant and employee. The offences occurred in March 2023, after the two had spent an evening drinking and taking cocaine at the home of the accused's friend. According to The Guardian's reporting, the assaults took place at the man's own home, consistent with earlier ABC News coverage that placed the alleged attack at his residence (ABC News).

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

The trial hinged on sharply contested accounts of what occurred that night. The complainant gave evidence over more than four days before a closed court, detailing the events of March 2023 and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The accused did not give evidence at trial. The defence case, led by Dann KC, was that no sexual contact had occurred between the man and the complainant at all. The jury rejected that account, convicting on all three charges.

The accused had pleaded not guilty to all counts. ABC News had reported on 8 July 2026 that the Melbourne businessman entered not-guilty pleas to the rape and sexual assault charges, as the trial was getting underway (ABC News).

The man's identity has been suppressed throughout the proceedings. His lawyers secured a court order in December 2024 to suppress his name until the criminal trial concluded (ABC News). A suppression order is a judicial directive that prevents the publication of certain information — in this case, the accused's name. The order was sought on the basis that publication could prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial, a standard mechanism in Victoria's criminal justice system for high-profile defendants. The order's continuation or lifting now that a verdict has been reached will depend on further judicial determination, particularly ahead of sentencing.

After the jury returned its guilty verdicts, the man's bail was revoked and he was taken into custody. He remains in custody pending sentencing, which will occur at a later date before Judge Gucciardo.

Several elements of this case are worth examining for those who follow Victoria's criminal justice landscape. The decision by the accused not to give evidence is a legally significant one. In Victoria, juries are not permitted to draw an adverse inference from an accused's silence — meaning they cannot hold it against the defendant that he chose not to testify. This protection is rooted in the common-law privilege against self-incrimination, the right not to be compelled to provide evidence that could incriminate oneself. However, the practical dynamics of a jury trial mean that the contrast between a complainant who testified over four days and an accused who declined to take the stand can carry persuasive weight in the deliberation room, regardless of the legal directions given by the judge.

The defence strategy of denying that any sexual contact occurred is also notable. This is a categorical denial, distinct from the more common defence of conceding sexual contact but contesting consent — that is, arguing the encounter happened but was agreed to by both parties. A categorical denial places the entirety of the factual dispute on whether the complainant's account is credible and reliable, and it exposes the defence to forensic risk if the prosecution can corroborate even peripheral details of the complainant's narrative. The jury's verdict indicates that the complainant's testimony, delivered over four days in a closed court, was accepted beyond reasonable doubt over the defence's position that nothing occurred.

The victim's contemporaneous actions during and after the assault, including taking notes on her phone and texting her mother, may have served as a form of real-time documentation that reinforced her credibility. The fact that her mother then called police, and that officers arrived at the property in the early hours of the same morning, provided an immediate chain of reporting that is often difficult for a defence to undermine.

The involvement of Dermot Dann KC, a senior criminal defence barrister, signals the calibre of representation the accused secured. High-profile defendants in Victoria routinely engage King's Counsel — senior barristers recognised for exceptional expertise — for serious matters, reflecting both the resources available to them and the gravity of the charges they face.

The suppression order remains a point of broader public interest. Victoria's suppression regime, governed by the Judicial College of Victoria guidelines and the Open Courts Act 2013, balances the accused's fair-trial rights against principles of open justice — the idea that justice should be conducted transparently so the public can scrutinise it. Now that the trial has concluded with a guilty verdict, the rationale for continued suppression weakens, though the court may extend it if sentencing could be prejudiced by publication or if separate legal grounds are established. The man cannot be named for legal reasons until any applicable suppression order is lifted.

Sentencing in Victoria for rape carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment per count. Sentencing judges exercise discretion within statutory and guideline ranges, considering factors such as the offender's prior criminal history, the circumstances of the offending, and victim impact statements. Judge Gucciardo will hand down the sentence at a date to be fixed.