Matter of minutes for Hayne
THE jury in the Jarryd Hayne case has been told a period of just 27 minutes is what they must critically analyse before deciding whether to find the former NRL star guilty or innocent of sexual assault.
Crown prosecutor John Sfinas addressed the jury as the two-week NSW District Court trial comes to an end.
The 35-year-old Dally M winner has pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault without consent.
Mr Hayne denies having sexually assaulted the woman at her home on Newcastle’s outskirts in September 2018, on the night of the NRL grand final, claiming they engaged in consensual sexual acts.
The woman and the Crown prosecution have argued that while she had sent him sexually suggestive messages via social media platforms, she was not consenting to sexual intercourse.
She said she refused to consent because he had a cab waiting in her front yard, just outside her bedroom window, which he had paid $550 to ferry him from a buck’s party to Sydney where he was booked in to attend a midnight event.
Mr Sfinas told the court that Mr Hayne lied to both the alleged victim and the taxi driver, saying neither would be “happy about the situation”.
The court was previously told that Mr Hayne did not respond to the woman when she questioned him about why a taxi was waiting for him outside the house.
“If you accept the complainant’s version of the accused manhandling her, you might think that was born out of frustration because things weren’t going quickly enough.”
Mr Sfinas told the court that Mr Hayne’s version of events on the night was implausible.
Defence barrister Margaret Cunneen SC began her opening address, telling the jury there were two phases to the night in question.
She told the court that Mr Hayne arrived at the house at 9.07pm and left 46 minutes later, but the sexual activity did not occur until 9.26pm in the final 27 minutes of the visit.
“He’s in there for 27 minutes, while showers are taken, while explanations are made … he doesn’t rush off in the boorish way that has been described,” Ms Cunneen said.
“Ladies and gentlemen time doesn’t lie and the most important timing in this case is the amount of time Mr Hayne was at the address.”
She told the court the police were “never aware” of communications the woman had with two people in the days leading up to the alleged incident.
Ms Cunneen said it was an area of evidence the “police had no idea about” until earlier court proceedings.
“She deliberately curated the material that she gave to the police,” Ms Cunneen said.
“If Mr Hayne had committed these dreadful crimes, why would she be deleting any of these messages?”
Mr Sfinas told the jury they were asked by Ms Cunneen to view the alleged victim’s evidence “through a prism that she embellished and lied to police. It is the Crown submission that she did not lie. She did not exaggerate and she did not embellish.”