The charges include four counts of rape and 10 counts of indecent assault. Some of the complainants allege he forced white powder in their mouths, spiked their drink or forced an ecstasy pill in their mouths before raping or sexually assaulting them. Some claim they did not have control of their bodies.
The defence says police built a case against the man after the first woman complained and it had now become a “MeToo fest” with women “reinventing” occasions they spent with the man. It is the defence’s case that sex with different women and drugs were part of the industry and many of those involved were part of that lifestyle.
The Crown’s first witness told the jury last week she was staying at a house with the defendant when he came into her bedroom, forcefully kissed her, pushed her against a wall and sexually assaulted her.
Under questioning by Crown Solicitor Anna Pollett, the former business associate told the jury today he was informed about the allegation the next day and immediately took steps to “exit” the man from his business dealings.
“That’s not who we are. We don’t want our businesses to be associated with that. There’s a moral obligation there. It was an easy decision for us.”
He told the jury he approached the defendant about the allegations and the man made the comment: “Perhaps I have taken it too far this time”.
Defence lawyer Ron Mansfield KC suggested the former business associate used the allegation to force the defendant to sell his shares at below market price.
“You only cared about the allegation so you could orchestrate the sale,” Mansfield said.
The former associate denied the suggestion and said: “There were plenty of allegations but this time I chose to believe the source.”
Mansfield suggested the former associate came up with more evidence for police months after the alleged assault because he saw an opportunity to discredit the defendant and make money by getting cheaper shares.
”I suggest to you the person you are interested in is yourself,” Mansfield said to the former associate.
He responded to Mansfield by saying: “I suggest that about your client.”
The former associate said he did not divulge all he knew at the time because he was trying to stay neutral.
He said it was a difficult time because he was dealing with the man, whom he described as being “extremely manipulative”.
Mansfield also asked the former business associate about a group chat he had with the man and another person that referenced cocaine.
The former business associate admitted he, the man and others frequently used cocaine.
Earlier in the day, the jury heard final evidence from the woman, who described how the intoxicated man went into her bedroom while she was sleeping and forced himself on her - despite his wife sleeping nearby.
She said she told the man: “What are you doing? Think of your wife... Get off me.”
She said the assault only ended when the man suggested they get a hotel room the next day, away from his wife. She told the jury she agreed to the man’s suggestion because she felt it was her only “out” to make the assault stop.
The woman’s sister gave evidence and told the jury her sister contacted her and her partner the morning after the assault and sounded “hysterical” on the phone.
She told them something bad had happened and they agreed to meet her because they didn’t want her travelling long distances in that state.
The trial, which is set down for six weeks, is before Justice Layne Harvey and a jury of nine women and three men.
Justice Harvey had earlier ruled the man’s interim name suppression would be addressed after the first week of the trial. He heard submissions from Pollett and Mansfield today and has reserved his decision until tomorrow.
Correction: This article has been amended to make clear the associate giving evidence did not use methamphetamine and marijuana.
