A high-profile Australian business figure, recently found guilty by a jury of raping a much younger woman, is fighting to keep his identity hidden from public view, with a key court hearing on the request set for this week in Victoria.
The 12-member jury delivered its guilty verdict last Tuesday, concluding a two-week trial in the County Court of Victoria. The guilty finding centered on a 2023 sexual assault that unfolded after the defendant and his accuser met at his home to discuss potential work opportunities. According to court testimony, after the work meeting, the pair began drinking alcohol and consuming cocaine. The woman, who was decades younger than the defendant, told the court she opened up to him about a recent romantic relationship breakup, after which he hugged her and claimed he would “take care of her” before initiating unwanted sexual contact.
Prosecutor Matthew Fisher told the court that the woman repeatedly pushed the defendant away, explicitly saying “I don’t want this”, but the businessman ignored her protests, responding that he could not stop because he found her so attractive. The attack continued as the defendant digitally penetrated the woman while she cried into a pillow, before raping her. She only managed to stop the assault by punching him in the face, Fisher told the court.
Throughout the trial, defense barrister Dermot Dann KC repeatedly challenged the accuser’s account, arguing there were inconsistencies in her testimony. Dann claimed the woman had a clear financial incentive to fabricate the allegations, pointing to evidence that she had launched a civil claim against his client, and had told a cousin she intended to “take this man for all that he’s worth”. The defendant has maintained his full innocence, denying the allegations of sexual assault, cocaine use and unwanted advances, and his legal team has confirmed they are weighing an appeal against the guilty verdict.
For three years leading up to the trial, successive non-publication orders have barred news organizations from releasing any information that could identify the defendant. These initial orders were granted after judicial officials ruled there was a substantial risk of severe psychological harm to the man if his name was released, and were scheduled to expire once the jury delivered its verdict. However, immediately following last week’s guilty finding, Dann requested and received a temporary extension of the suppression order, to give his legal team time to prepare full arguments and evidence for a permanent gag order. Dann confirmed the submission will include new psychiatric evidence outlining the risks to the defendant’s mental health if his identity is made public.
The upcoming Monday hearing in the County Court of Victoria will hear arguments for and against the permanent suppression order. Multiple media outlets have already confirmed they will formally challenge the request to keep the defendant’s identity secret, and prosecuting authorities have also previously stated they oppose the ongoing non-publication order.
A sentencing hearing is scheduled to take place later this month after the court resolves the dispute over the suppression order.