Alleged rape victim ‘could have done a lot better’ if she had made up claims against well-connected Melbourne man, court told

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 man, who cannot be named, faces two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, and has pleaded not guilty in Victoria’s county court.The alleged offences occurred in March 2023 after the woman – a former personal assistant for the accused – said she spent an evening drinking and taking cocaine with him, while listening to music and watching the football.It’s alleged by the prosecution that the woman was at the man’s house when he tried to kiss her and sexually assaulted her. He then allegedly raped her twice, the trial previously heard.The accused did not give evidence during the trial, and the alleged victim gave evidence before a closed court.The man’s lawyer, Dermot Dann KC, has told the court the alleged offending never occurred.Sign up for the Breaking News Australia emailIn his final address to the jury, prosecutor Matthew Fisher said the case came down to six key aspects.These included the evidence of the complainant; what happened immediately after the alleged incident, including that she was at the accused’s house when police arrived and was captured speaking to them on a body-worn camera; and her alleged motive to lie.Fisher said trauma did “strange things” to memory, and accounts of sexual assault often differed. He said, however, that the complainant had not wavered in her description of what happened to her in accounts to her mother, police and a doctor in the 24 hours after the alleged incident.He said the jury may also consider there is some “complexity” to her personality, given her demeanour while she gave evidence, though that did not mean she was lying about the allegations.“I concede there were some gaps, some differences, some inconsistencies in her evidence, she was cross-examined for a number of hours about all of those things,” Fisher said.“Mr Dann is a very experienced barrister, he is a very good barrister.“Despite all of that cross-examination she remained adamant about the alleged offending: ‘This happened. This is what he did to me’.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFisher said these inconsistencies actually underlined the truthfulness of the alleged victim.“If she really wanted to make all this up … she could have done a better job. Could have done a lot better,” he said.“She would have been clear and consistent, from start to finish, if this was … part of this masterplan to get the accused in trouble, or get some money from him.“The existence of some gaps or inconsistencies … enhances her credibility.”Fisher said that the complainant’s interactions with other witnesses, including a former friend, and two friends of the accused who spent part of the evening before the alleged incident with them, were also a key aspect of the case.Another aspect was the complainant’s relationship with police. The court heard on Tuesday from two police who were involved in pulling the complainant over for drink-driving in 2019.The complainant accused one of the officers of saying to her “I love getting little sluts like you off the road” in a complaint she made to police in 2022.On Tuesday, the officers both denied making the comment. This previous experience with police was referred to by the complainant on the night of the alleged rape as a reason she did not want to report the matter to the authorities, despite the urgings of her mother.Fisher criticised the evidence of the senior officer, Det Sen Cons David Barlow, saying that he was “loose” and “untrue”, and that the jury could find he had made the comment to the complainant.He said that while Dann had repeatedly accused the complainant of lying under oath, it was Barlow who the jury should find was untruthful.“One of them is lying under oath,” Fisher said.Dann described the allegation made by the complainant against police as false in his opening statement to the court.The trial continues.