Key facts
- Alan Jones is on trial for 20 charges of indecent assault and two of sexual touching.
- A complainant's ex-girlfriend testified about a conversation where he alleged Jones touched him inappropriately.
- The defense suggested the ex-girlfriend had a financial motive to fabricate the disclosure.
- The prosecutor argued the defense was intimidating the witness by introducing a past fine.
- The judge allowed the questioning, finding it relevant to the defense's theory of fabricated evidence.
In the ongoing trial of Alan Jones, who faces 20 charges of indecent assault and two of sexual touching, lawyers for the defense have been accused by the prosecutor of intimidating a witness. The accusation arose during the cross-examination of the ex-girlfriend of one of the complainants, referred to as J.
The ex-girlfriend testified that J had told her over 20 years ago that Jones had inappropriately touched him. During cross-examination, Jones's barrister, Gabrielle Bashir SC, suggested that the ex-girlfriend had a financial motive to fabricate this disclosure, pointing to messages where J promised to look after her. However, the witness denied any financial motive or fabrication, stating J wanted to tell his truth.
Bashir then presented a $1,200 fine the ex-girlfriend had received two years prior. Prosecutor Georgina Wright objected, arguing this was an attempt to "besmirch" the witness and constituted intimidation. Judge Glenn Walsh allowed the questioning, stating it was relevant to the defense's theory of fabricated evidence and that the air needed to be cleared. The witness acknowledged the fine was significant and required her to attend a 12-month program with financial consequences, but maintained she did not need financial help.
The witness reiterated her memory of J's disclosure 20 years ago, despite Bashir's repeated suggestions that the conversation never occurred. The court has heard that J reported the alleged assaults to the police after seeing reports of Jones's arrest in relation to other allegations. The prosecution was also permitted to expand the timeline of alleged offending against J due to apparent inconsistencies in witness evidence.