An alleged gang rapist who took advantage of a drugged woman out the back of a pizza shop made up three different versions of events, a Sydney jury has heard.
Ricardo Audish, 41, told the final story during his District Court trial giving evidence, saying the teenager he had just met for the first time told her then-boyfriend she wanted to have sex with the pizza restaurant worker, the Crown has submitted.
Audish has pleaded not guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual assault in company after the encounter with the 18-year-old woman in the southern Sydney eatery in October 2016.
The Crown alleges that Audish, then 38, and two underage boys assaulted the woman while she was drugged, and then worked together to corroborate their stories when she went to police.
Ricardo Audish has pleaded not guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual assault in company
Judge David Arnott was summing up the case for the jury on Wednesday following more than two weeks of evidence, saying the Crown submits the panel ‘would not believe a word of the accused’.
Audish’s first fabrication that he was not at the restaurant at the time of the assault was ‘thwarted’ by a co-worker’s police statement, also saying Audish asked him to lie about his whereabouts, crown prosecutor Kate Nightingale has submitted.
DNA evidence of Audish’s semen ‘put a stop to the (second) false story’ that he did not have sexual intercourse with the woman, Ms Nightingale said.
Defence barrister Eugene Wasilenia earlier told the jury Audish lied about having consensual sexual intercourse because he was married.
Judge Arnott outlined the crown case being the woman consented to sex with her boyfriend in a toilet cubicle at the back of the restaurant, before he told her ‘all the other boys want to have sex with you now’, to which she replied ‘hell no’.
The Crown says this was not a question but a statement to her, and showed the men acted as a joint criminal enterprise and had arranged the sex acts beforehand.
But Audish denies any prior communication about the incident.
‘What the accused did was simply opportunistic and had nothing to do with the others,’ Mr Wasilenia said.
The Crown alleges that Audish, then 38, and two underage boys assaulted the woman while she was drugged, and then sought to get their stories straight when she went to police
As she was pulling up her underwear in the toilet another male entered and offered her a bong, a deliberate act the Crown says shows they knew she was not consenting to what they intended to do.
The effect of the cannabis was unlike anything she had ever felt before, her head began spinning, she felt dizzy and was shaking.
The Crown points to CCTV footage of her ‘sure-footed’ walking and sometimes jogging upstairs before the incident, compared to after where she is seen walking slowly, stumbling and leaning on a pole for 17 minutes to regain balance.
After Audish allegedly asked if she was OK, her memory became patchy and her next recollection was leaning over a stack of chairs while he had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her, the Crown says.
‘The accused was the boss so he went first,’ the Crown says, while the others took their turns according to their age.
The 41-year-old (pictured arriving at court on March 2) originally said he was not working at the pizzeria during the alleged assault, the court was told
In his evidence Audish said the pair had a cigarette outside and had a conversation where he asked the woman why she wanted to have sex with him, to which she allegedly responded ‘I like you’.
He said he asked her three times if she wanted to have sex and each time she said yes, so he led her past the freezer out the back to where the toilets were.
Audish said she started touching his penis and lifted her skirt up for them to have sexual intercourse, afterward saying words to the effect ‘it was good’.
Mr Wasilenia asked ‘how would she know whether or not if she consented to one or other of these men if she has no memory of having a conversation before the sex occurred?’
Judge Arnott will finish his address to the jury on Thursday morning before it is expected to retire to deliberate on a verdict.