Melbourne rape trial: alleged victim's credibility questioned in 2026

A woman who accused a well-connected Melbourne man of rape could have done a much better job if she was inventing the story for money, a Melbourne court has heard. The alleged victim's credibility is central to the trial, which involves two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.

Prosecution argues victim's account consistent

Prosecutor Matthew Fisher told the jury the case came down to six key aspects, including the complainant's evidence and her alleged motive to lie. He noted that trauma does strange things to memory and accounts of sexual assault often differ, but the complainant had not wavered in her description of what happened in the 24 hours after the alleged incident.

Defense claims fabrications

The accused's lawyer, Dermot Dann KC, described the prosecution's case as a horrendous mixture of lies, fabrications, and inconsistencies. He argued the alleged offending never occurred, and the woman could have invented a more compelling story if she were motivated by money.

Timeline of alleged incident

The alleged offences occurred in March 2023 after the woman, a former personal assistant for the accused, spent an evening drinking and taking cocaine with him while listening to music and watching football. The prosecution alleges the man tried to kiss her, sexually assaulted her, and then raped her twice.

Key takeaways from the trial

• The accused did not give evidence during the trial
• The alleged victim gave evidence before a closed court
• The jury must decide based on six key aspects presented by the prosecution
• Defense argues the case is built on a horrendous mixture of lies
• Trauma can affect memory, but consistency may indicate truth

Legal implications and public interest

This case highlights the challenges in sexual assault trials, where credibility often becomes the focal point. The outcome will have implications for how similar cases are handled in Victoria's county court. The jury's decision will hinge on whether they believe the complainant's account or the defense's assertions of fabrication.

FAQ