MELBOURNE — In a dramatic turn of events during closing arguments at a high-profile County Court trial, defence lawyers have launched a scathing attack on the credibility of a woman who accused a well-connected Melbourne businessman of rape. The defence urged jurors to acquit their client, arguing the prosecution's case was "horrible" and built on "false allegations."

During a blistering closing address, defence barrister Dermot Dann KC asserted that the complainant was a "serial liar" who had presented "lie after lie" throughout the proceedings. "There are cases when complainants... make false allegations, make false statements, give false evidence in court," Mr Dann told the jury. "This is one of those cases."

The businessman, whose identity is legally suppressed, has pleaded not guilty to charges of rape and sexual assault. The case hinges on events that allegedly transpired at his residence on the night of March 23, 2023, and into the early hours of the following morning.

The court heard that the complainant had previously worked as the man's personal assistant and was reportedly in discussions about rejoining his business at the time of the alleged incident. Prosecutors allege that the pair had spent the evening consuming alcohol and cocaine before the alleged rape occurred in the businessman's bedroom. The alleged sexual penetration was said to have lasted mere seconds, reportedly ceasing only when the woman punched the man in the face.

However, Mr Dann adamantly denied that any rape took place, reiterating his claim that the woman had "told lie after lie" regarding the events of that night and the circumstances leading up to it.

Conversely, prosecutor Matthew Fisher painted a picture of the accuser as "emotional" and "vulnerable" following a recent relationship breakup, arguing that her state made her susceptible. Mr Fisher underscored the consistency of the complainant's allegations throughout police interviews and the three-year legal process, maintaining her account had not wavered.

The prosecution firmly rejected suggestions that the woman had concocted a "master plan" to fabricate rape claims as a means of extorting money from the accused man. While acknowledging that the woman had engaged civil lawyers after the alleged incident and sought financial compensation, Mr Fisher stressed that this desire for recompense did not equate to her lying or fabricating her story. He pointed out that her initial presence at the businessman's home was due to a job offer.

The woman's evidence during the multi-day trial was presented in a closed court, with only legal counsel, the accused, and the jury present. Mr Fisher addressed concerns raised by the defence about the woman's demeanor in the witness box, where she was observed smiling, chuckling, laughing, and was even reprimanded for swearing. He maintained that such conduct, while potentially unusual, did not serve as proof that she was lying about the rape allegations.

The prosecutor also took aim at a "star witness" called by the defence to undermine the woman's credibility. This witness, a veteran police officer, testified that the woman falsely accused him of calling her a "little slut" during a drink-driving arrest in 2019. Mr Fisher urged the jury to accept the woman's version of events over the police officer's, explicitly stating, "One of them is lying under oath."

The trial continues as the jury prepares to deliberate on the compelling and conflicting evidence presented.