In 2021, former NRL star Jarryd Hayne was convicted of sexual assault against a woman in 2018. The complainant had messaged a woman about the encounter on the same day, describing the event as non-consensual. However, in a later message, she mentioned that she did not tell the woman earlier because she found the experience both disgusting and confusing. The defence argued that this amounted to the concealment of evidence, which could impact the complainant’s credibility. They also raised concerns about the timeline of events, suggesting that the alleged assault was not consistent with the 27-minute period between the end of a game and Hayne leaving the house.
During the hearing, Hayne appeared via video link from the Mary Wade Correctional Centre. The Crown prosecutor highlighted that the complainant had not mentioned the assault to the other woman because they had never met in person and only knew each other through social media. She emphasized that the complainant had shared similar complaints with five other people about the night, including Hayne being rough and pushy, her repeated objections, and asking him to stop. The prosecutor argued that the complainant’s frustration with the legal process, as expressed in her later message to the woman, did not indicate deliberate concealment of evidence.
Hayne’s appeal is based on three grounds: that the verdicts are unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, that the trial judge erred in certain rulings regarding the complainant’s interactions with others, and that these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The defence argued that Hayne’s convictions should be overturned, and he should be acquitted if any of the grounds of appeal are successful. They also stated that a retrial should not be ordered in this case. The hearing continues as the court considers the arguments presented.
The defence focused on the perceived inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of the events surrounding the sexual assault. They raised concerns about the timing of the alleged assault in relation to Hayne’s presence at the house and departure. These inconsistencies, along with the messages exchanged between the complainant and the other woman, were seen as factors that could impact the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. The defence argued that these aspects raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the complainant’s claims.
The Crown prosecutor, on the other hand, emphasized the consistency in the complainant’s statements to multiple individuals about the assault. She highlighted the fact that the complainant had shared similar details with different people, reinforcing the claim that the sexual encounter was non-consensual. The prosecutor also addressed the complainant’s later message to the other woman, portraying it as an expression of frustration with the legal process rather than an attempt to conceal information. The court will need to weigh these arguments and considerations as they assess the grounds for Hayne’s appeal and determine the appropriate course of action in light of the evidence presented.
Overall, the hearing involved a detailed examination of the events leading up to and following the sexual assault allegations against Jarryd Hayne. Both the defence and the prosecution presented their arguments regarding the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, the timing of the assault, and the significance of the messages exchanged between individuals involved. As the court continues to deliberate on the grounds for Hayne’s appeal, they must consider the evidence presented and determine whether the convictions should be upheld, overturned, or if any further legal action is necessary.
