The content discusses the ongoing appeal of former NRL player Jarryd Hayne against his sexual assault conviction. The prosecution argued that the complainant had messaged a woman about her encounter with Hayne, but did not mention that it was non-consensual. The defence argued that this was evidence of dishonesty and questioned the credibility of the complainant. They also raised concerns about the time frame of the alleged assault, claiming that the events described could not account for the 27-minute period between the end of a match and Hayne leaving the victim’s home.
During the hearing, the complainant alleged that Hayne had pulled off her pants, performed sexual acts, and left her bleeding. Crown prosecutor Georgina Wright, SC, noted that the complainant had not told the other woman about the assault because they had never met in person and knew each other only through social media. Wright argued that the complainant’s complaints to five other people about the assault were consistent and should be given more weight than her lack of disclosure to the other woman.
Hayne’s appeal is based on three grounds: that the verdicts are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, that the trial judge erred in allowing the complainant to withhold evidence about interactions with other individuals, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Hayne’s lawyer argued that the conviction should be quashed, and he should be acquitted if any of the grounds for appeal are successful. The defence contended that a retrial should not be ordered in this case.
The hearing featured Hayne appearing via video link from Mary Wade Correctional Centre, while his wife also attended. The defence argued that the complainant’s messages to other individuals, including a message from 2021 expressing frustration with the legal process, should not be seen as evidence of deliberate concealment. The prosecution emphasized the similarities in the complainant’s accounts to multiple individuals, including allegations of rough and pushy behavior from Hayne.
The prosecution and defence clashed over the credibility of the complainant and the significance of her interactions with other individuals regarding the assault. The defence raised doubts about the sequence of events described by the complainant and questioned the reliability of the evidence presented. The appeal hearing continued with Justices Anthony Meagher, Stephen Rothman, and Deborah Sweeney presiding. The outcome of the appeal remains uncertain as both sides present their arguments and evidence.
