A well-connected Melbourne man has been found guilty of raping a woman who had worked for him, following a three-week trial in the Victorian County Court. The verdict, delivered this week, followed evidence the jury was told came down largely to competing accounts of a single afternoon in March 2023.
VCN is not naming the man at this stage. While the guilty verdict is a matter of public record, reporting restrictions and the ongoing nature of the proceedings — including sentencing submissions still to come — mean we are exercising caution in how much identifying detail we publish. The woman at the centre of the case cannot be identified under Victorian law, and nothing in this article should be read as an attempt to do so.
What the court was told #
According to evidence given at trial, the woman had worked as the man’s personal assistant and received a text message from him on 23 March 2023 asking whether she was free “this arvo for a meeting”. The court was told she attended his home that afternoon, where prosecutors allege the assault occurred.
Court documents and evidence led at trial described the property in some detail — including a grand piano, a wine cellar and a sauna — as jurors were taken through the sequence of events prosecutors say unfolded that day. The woman gave evidence that she signed a guestbook at the house, a detail the prosecution said helped establish a timeline of her visit.
The defence case, as put to the jury, was that the account given by the woman contained inconsistencies and that the encounter was consensual. Under Victorian law, a jury does not need a complainant’s account to be perfect or entirely free of inconsistency in order to accept it — juries are directed that trauma can affect memory and recall in different ways, and that inconsistency alone does not mean a witness is not telling the truth. After considering the evidence over the course of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict.
What jurors don’t get to hear — and why #
Victorian trials are built around a set of exclusionary rules designed to ensure a jury decides a case only on evidence that is directly relevant, reliable and tested through cross-examination. That means jurors are routinely never told things that might seem obviously relevant to an outside observer.
Some categories of information that juries in Victoria typically do not hear include:
- An accused person’s prior criminal history, if any exists, unless it becomes admissible for a specific legal reason ruled on by the judge
- Material ruled inadmissible during pre-trial argument or during the trial itself, including anything discussed in the absence of the jury
- Character evidence about either party that a judge determines would be more prejudicial than probative
- Details of any plea negotiations or earlier charges that were withdrawn or not proceeded with
- Commentary or reporting about the case that may have appeared in the media before or during the trial
These rules exist because the presumption of innocence requires that a person be judged on the evidence properly before the court — not on their reputation, their past, or public perception. A judge will often give jurors explicit directions reminding them to decide the case solely on what they have heard in the courtroom, and to disregard anything they may have come across elsewhere.
We are not suggesting any specific ruling was made in this matter beyond what has been reported from the open court record. VCN was not in a position to verify the content of any argument that may have taken place in the absence of the jury, and in line with our editorial standards we do not report on voir dire matters.
Why ‘well-connected’ matters — and where the line sits #
Reporting has described the man as “well-connected” in Melbourne circles. Courts and media organisations tread carefully around this kind of description, because a person’s social or professional standing is not evidence of guilt or innocence — and nor is the absence of it. A jury’s task is to weigh the evidence given under oath and tested through cross-examination, not to draw inferences from a person’s reputation, wealth or social circle.
At the same time, the fact a case involves someone with a public profile can shape how much scrutiny a trial attracts, and why courts are often especially careful about suppression orders, jury directions and the risk of prejudicial publicity. Victorian courts have suppression powers under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) that can be used to protect a fair trial, protect a complainant’s identity, or manage risks specific to a case. We are not asserting that any order applies here beyond the standard statutory protections that apply automatically to complainants in sexual offence matters.
The legal test the jury had to apply #
In Victoria, a jury in a rape trial must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual act occurred without consent, and that the accused did not reasonably believe the complainant was consenting. This is a demanding standard, and it is the reason jury trials for sexual offences can run for weeks even when the central factual dispute — as it was described to the jury in this case — comes down to two competing accounts of the same afternoon.
Victorian law has, in recent years, been reformed to make clear that consent must be actively and mutually communicated, and that a belief in consent based on silence or a lack of physical resistance is not a reasonable belief. Judges routinely direct juries on these principles before they retire to consider a verdict, and on the fact that there is no “typical” way a victim of sexual assault is expected to behave, either during an alleged assault or in its aftermath.
What happens now #
Following the guilty verdict, the matter will proceed to a plea hearing, where prosecutors and defence lawyers will make submissions on sentencing before a judge. Victims of crime in Victoria are entitled to have a victim impact statement read to the court, or read aloud themselves, if they choose. Sentencing in matters of this kind can take some months to be finalised, and any appeal rights available to the convicted man would not begin to run until sentence is formally imposed.
VCN will continue to follow this matter through sentencing. Any further reporting will continue to comply with statutory restrictions protecting the identity of the complainant.
Support is available #
Readers affected by the issues raised in this article can contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, the Sexual Assault Crisis Line on 1800 806 292, or Safe Steps on 1800 015 188. Anyone with information relevant to a police investigation can contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. Support is also available through Lifeline on 13 11 14 and Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers can contact 13YARN on 13 92 76.
