The woman who alleges she was raped by a high profile Sydney man while she was his intern has rebutted claims she “made up” that she had rejected his sexual advances more than once to make the sex sound “more nonconsensual”, a court has heard.
Under cross-examination, the woman – who was 19 at the time the man in his mid-30s allegedly raped her – was drawn by defence counsel David Scully SC on apparent inconsistencies between police statements she gave more than six years after the incident allegedly occurred and evidence given to the court on Tuesday.
Scully questioned why she told the court she said “no” multiple times during the alleged rape but did not mention this in her police statement.
“I believe there was more said, but I appreciate it’s not in my statement,” the woman, known as complainant one, told the court.
The woman appeared before the NSW Downing Centre district court for the second day on Thursday, in the third day of a trial expected to last 10 weeks. The man charged with her alleged rape, whom Guardian Australia cannot name due to a suppression order, is facing trial after pleading not guilty to 12 charges – which include six counts of rape – alleged to have occurred over a six-year period against six women on separate occasions.
The crown is arguing the man had a tendency to carry out sexual conduct with usually much younger females, knowing that they did not consent or that he was reckless to their consent.
The man’s defence contends that there was sex with five of the women who have alleged they were raped, including complainant one. However, his defence argues, the sex was consensual, “not in the circumstances alleged by the crown”, and that the complainants “admired the accused, even idolised him”.
In the woman’s statement to police, she alleged she told the man “no”. It details that when he allegedly started to rub her legs between her thighs and before he allegedly raped her, she told him: “This [internship] is a work thing [and] I don’t want to do that.” Her statement alleged the man then responded: “Something like it’s fine, it doesn’t change anything.”
“In my mind I had made it clear that I didn’t want to have sex with him,” she had written in the statement, also stating that during the alleged rape, it wasn’t “mutual engagement” and she was “just lying there and was frozen”.
Scully pressed the woman on why in this statement to police, and another she made four months later, she did not mention additional information she told the court. In particular that the man allegedly put his arm around her to pull her back after she tried to pull away.
“You’re just making that up aren’t you?” Scully asked the woman during cross-examination.
“No,” she responded.
Scully then asked her if it was something she had added “on the go” to “to try to make it sound more nonconsensual” and support her version of events.
“No,” she responded.
Asked earlier in the cross-examination if the police statement was to the best of her ability a “full account of what occurred”, she said it was at that point.
“I spoke to the police officer in charge and made [it] very clear it was a long time ago and also something I’d never spoken about before and wasn’t something I was really comfortable articulating so it was [to] the best of my ability at that point,” she told the court.
The woman was asked if what was on her mind when she was “having sex” with the man is that it could help her get ahead in the industry, to which she replied no. She was then asked if it was “part of” her thinking at other “relevant times”.
“When we were having a professional engagement, yes … But when I was being raped no, that was not something I was thinking,” she said.
Scully asserted in the cross-examination that the second time the woman alleged the man raped her – about “four or five” months after the first incident during a visit to his workplace – it was consensual. But the woman was adamant it wasn’t. This incident does not form part of the charges against the man.
He also questioned her about a video shown to the court on Wednesday which showed her dancing around his workplace during her visit wearing a costume. The woman alleged the man had given her the costume to try on before assaulting her.
Scully asserted that the video – which shows her “laughing and smiling and playing guitar” – was taken after she alleges she was assaulted, and not before, and showed her in a “good mood”. But she asserted the video was taken before.
Earlier in the cross-examination, the woman was asked why she visited the man on another occasion.
“It’s a really good question. As I’ve said multiple times I think I was confused. I was very young. I really badly wanted it to be what I thought it was, which was a work relationship, someone that would give me guidance. But it wasn’t,” she said.
The trial continues. The witness remains on the stand, under cross-examination from defence counsel.
