A “special drink” that a high-profile Sydney man gave to a woman when she visited his house was possibly spiked with a party drug that can result in people passing out, a court has heard.
In his closing argument, crown prosecutor Adrian Robertson said the jury “might conclude” this after expert evidence that what the complainant had described was consistent with the consumption of GHB, a drug which can also affect people’s memory. This was not supported by a toxicology report.
The woman, known as complainant two, alleged that he gave her clear liquid in a martini glass and said “here’s your special drink” after they had taken MDMA together and she asked for some water. In her evidence, the complainant said the MDMA had made her feel “euphoric” and later she started to feel “overwhelmed” and had to lie down.
She alleged that her next memory was waking up in the accused’s bed. He then allegedly touched her breast. She left soon after, she said. The woman has accused the man of indecent assault.
The man, who Guardian Australia cannot name due to a suppression order, is facing trial after pleading not guilty to nine charges – including five counts of rape – alleged to have occurred over a six-year period against five women on separate occasions.
The crown argued 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 argued that he did have sex with the four women who have alleged he raped them, but that it was consensual, “not in the circumstances alleged by the crown”, and that the complainants “admired the accused, even idolised him”.
Earlier in the proceedings, complainant two was questioned under cross-examination why the detail of the “special drink” wasn’t included in her first police statement. She responded: “I pushed down the memories.”
In his closing argument, Robertson said the complainant might not have wanted to include “everything”.
“We would suggest that you would find her honest and reliable, of course she got some things wrong, she found it very stressful both reporting to other people and going to the police,” Robertson later told the court.
In his closing argument, Robertson also spoke to the evidence for complainant one and three, who both allege they were raped.
For complainant one, who alleges the accused raped her while she was his intern, Robertson said it was not in dispute that the pair had sex. What was in dispute was her allegation that she did not consent.
“We would ask you to believe her in relation to that,” he said to the jury, who are expected to deliver their verdict in the rape trial next week.
The woman alleged the accused asked her to catalogue footage which included sex tapes of him and his ex-wife. She alleged that shortly afterwards, she was raped.
Robertson suggested to the jury the accused’s request of his intern, who was then 19 while he was in his mid-30s, was a “deliberate ploy” to “disinhibit” her.
Robertson claimed the accused knew his intern did not consent to the sex that occurred shortly after because, “amongst other things”, she had told him she did not consent.
Robertson pointed out that the complainant rejected defence counsel David Scully SC’s questions that she had initiated the sex, had been flirting and giggling, and had been reciprocating sexually during the interaction.
Robertson told the court the complainant was struggling with the issue of reporting the rape because of her respect for his work, but also her “antipathy towards him”.
Robertson said he anticipated that the defence counsel would submit in their closing argument – expected to begin on Thursday – that the complainants behaved in a way that was inconsistent with being a sexual assault victim, including having ongoing contact with the accused after the alleged rape and staying on friendly terms.
Robertson said the jury – made up of four women and 10 men – should apply a “mature understanding” to this behaviour, and also said the complainants are “honest and reliable”.
Robertson alleged that the accused also had knowledge the third complainant did not consent to sex, because she said no and told him she was “in pain”.
Earlier this week, a video was played to the court of the accused’s interview with the police after he was arrested on the rape charges. During the interview, he said the woman had come to his house the year before he was charged and accused him of rape. He said he had been shocked because she was telling him for the first time.
But in his closing argument, Robertson pointed to a text exchange between the pair a year before the visit which he told the court suggested the accused made an “admission” non-consensual sex had occurred.
In the text exchange, the woman asked the man if he recalled the last time they had had sex, and that she had told him during the interaction she was in pain and didn’t want to do it.
The man responded that he had “forgot that detail” and “I wish I could take it back”.
“He doesn’t say, ‘well, that didn’t happen’,” Robertson told the court.
Robertson’s closing argument continues.
