Alleged rape victim gives evidence in Darrell Hudson's ACT Supreme Court trial

Darrell Michael Hudson's ACT Supreme Court trial continued on Tuesday.

He has pleaded not guilty to 14 charges. These include five counts of sexual intercourse without consent, four counts of committing an act of indecency without consent, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of attempted sexual intercourse without consent.

Hudson has also denied charges of choking, strangling or suffocating a person, and property damage.

Chief prosecutor Anthony Williamson SC previously said Hudson and another unidentified man had visited a Canberra brothel on February 26, 2021.

Mr Williamson told the jury the other man paid in cash for Hudson to have sex with the woman, buying a "standard package".

He said the terms of the sexual encounter were "made abundantly clear" to Hudson, with only some acts permitted.

These included no kissing, no violence or "rough play", and no sex without a condom.

Mr Williamson told the jury Hudson was unable to achieve an erection on the night in question.

The prosecutor claimed the man raped the woman multiple ways, including orally and digitally, pinned her down, choked her, spat on her face and slapped her.

Mr Williamson alleged Hudson committed the offences due to a "combination of intoxication and frustration and agitation about being unable to achieve an erection".

Barrister Katrina Musgrove, who is representing Hudson, cross-examined the alleged victim on Tuesday.

The alleged victim told the court if a client wanted extras, this would usually be discussed and paid for in advance rather than as they "go along".

While she agreed with Ms Musgrove's proposition that part of her job was to put on a persona, she "would never allow that to go further".

"There is a difference between not being aroused and being very uncomfortable," the woman said.

"Are you making it up now?" Ms Musgrove asked.

The woman denied this.

The alleged victim also disagreed with the defence lawyer's suggestion that she never told Hudson what was, or was not, included in the service before it began.

While giving evidence, the woman also denied Ms Musgrove's suggestion Hudson had stood with a "drink in one hand, penis in the other" and had asked her for "a show".

She also disagreed with the suggestion Hudson had not assaulted her at any point.

During cross-examination, the alleged victim said one of the officers in her recorded police interview had "made it very clear he didn't think I'd been assaulted".

She denied Ms Musgrove's suggestion that she had embellished the interview to prove the officer "wrong" and "used all of [her] acting skills ... developed as a sex worker".

READ ALSO:

The defence lawyer also put to the woman that it was "physically impossible for Mr Hudson, who is not a very tall man" to commit some of the alleged sexual acts in the way she described.

The alleged victim said this was "not true".

The court also heard from another sex worker who was present on the night in question, a manager of the brothel, and a forensic biologist.

The trial, before Acting Justice Peter Berman, continues on Wednesday.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: