Prosecutor Kate Feltham told the jury the fourth complainant woke up to the man raping her.
“After this incident she was a bit angry and confused and that, her words, she ‘felt she had been used by you’.
“Was she used by you?”
The defendant replied with a firm “no”, and was adamant the sex was consensual.
Three complainants’ versions of events were put to the accused, with him repeatedly replying they were “not true” and that it “never happened”.
Feltham asked him why he went on to block a number of people on social media, including a woman who said she was indecently assaulted by him.
“I’m suggesting ... that you had no reason whatsoever to do that unless you had something to hide.”
The defendant replied there were many reasons to block people on social media.
Defence closes - ‘consent is consent’
In his closing argument, defence lawyer Val Nisbet said the jury faced the difficult task of trying to resolve the different stories about what happened on those nights.
He said the prosecution has failed to make a conclusive case.
“If the Crown says of that [the complainants’ evidence] that it has the ‘ring of truth’ 10 times, it doesn’t make it the truth.
“Because none of us in this court know the truth, and we’re expecting 12 of you, with your collective common sense, to see if you can locate the truth.”
Nisbet said that under cross-examination, the complainants’ inconsistencies were revealed, and they also accepted some defence propositions put to them.
He said during the trial the defence had outlined how they were a group of young people who drank and took drugs, and how it impacted on their choices.
“Can you consent if you’re drunk? Can you consent if you’ve had MDMA? The answer is yes, you can.
“It might be something you regret down the track, but nonetheless - consent is consent.”
Nisbet said ultimately his client had reasonable grounds to believe the young women were consenting to sexual activity.
“The young women were intrigued by him, beguiled by him, he got that, he took advantage of that, but he did not rape them.”
He said, during cross-examination, that one complainant could not rule out kissing the defendant and other acts, but she did not remember it.
“It supports the defence contention that people’s memories lapse - people can forget they’ve consented.”
He said even if the jury believed the defendant was a liar that did not mean he was guilty, people lied for all sorts of reasons.
Complainants had no reason to lie - prosecution
In the Crown’s closing argument lawyer Rushika De Silva told the court the incidents all happened after people were partying, and were all of a similar nature.
“The Crown says that this trial is about a number of young women who have each gone to sleep, or tried to go to sleep after a night out.
“And a young man who once he was in bed with them used the opportunity to sexually offend against each of them without their consent.”
De Silva said the jury may be wondering why some complainants continued to have contact, and in some cases sex, with the defendant after the incidents.
It did not undermine the complainants’ credibility, she said.
One wanted to prove to herself that the defendant was “an okay person”.
As a kind of “coping mechanism” she tried to convince herself that what had happened was not rape.
Some did not want to accept what had happened, or blamed themselves.
Others described pretending it didn’t happen, or not feeling brave enough to confront him, or wanting to move on without a fuss.
De Silva quoted one complainant: “I thought that because I didn’t speak when it was happening it was my fault, and that all of my nasty gross feelings about it were on me, and not because of something he did.
“Just because I wasn’t kicking and screaming and yelling doesn’t mean that I wasn’t unhappy with him and trying to distance myself … and limit any contact I could possibly have with him.”
De Silva said sometimes people who have experienced shocking or upsetting things blamed themselves - even if that was irrational.
She said the complainants had no reason to lie.
‘Social media storm’
Defence lawyer Val Nisbet said the complainants could not help but be influenced by accusations and discussions against a group of men, including the accused, on social and news media.
“The contamination of that social media firestorm, some of you may remember it, was pretty awful and miserable and vile.”
He said the defendant and his friends were attacked online.
But De Silva said most of the complainants had told other people what had happened to them prior to the social media posts.
And she said there was simply no evidence that any of the complainants had discussed their individual allegations in a group chat.
She said the social media posts were only relevant in that they were a reason why complainants went to the police when they did.
“The complainants said the knowledge that others were in the same boat meant that they were prepared to do something about it where previously they had all repressed it.”
Issue of memory
Throughout the trial, the complainants have been unable to remember details.
Complainants and witnesses have said they struggled to remember things because the alleged incidents were years ago and involved alcohol and drugs.
Defence lawyer Nisbet said he was concerned by the “recalled” memories of complainants and friends.
“We know the friends were in contact with each other and memories ... can easily be impacted by discussions with each other.”
But De Silva said while the incidents happened some time ago, the complainants’ imperfect recall did not mean they were lying or their evidence was unreliable.
She said the complainants and the accused had both said they had consumed either alcohol or alcohol and drugs before the incidents.
She said while complainants’ memories could be affected they still remembered the essential parts of what happened, and their evidence was consistent with other people’s.
“You will also recall the defendant gave evidence about taking MDMA and was confident that that had no effect on his memory at all.”
She said it was simply another factor to take into account, but it could not be the cause of a completely different narrative of events.
De Silva said the complainants and defendant could not both be right, and their respective credibility and reliability were crucial to the case.
Today the judge will sum up the case for the jury, who will then retire to consider a verdict.
