Robert Scott. PHOTO: ODT FILES A woman who claims she was pushed against the wall by a Dunedin businessman did not report it at the time, despite speaking to police soon after. Robert Anthony Scott, 69, appeared in the Dunedin District Court yesterday for the third day of his jury trial. He faces 12 charges relating to one complainant: six of rape, two of indecent assault, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and three charges of assaulting a female. One of the charges came after the complainant alleged Scott pushed her against a wall. Yesterday, the complainant gave evidence that she called her ex-partner while the assault was happening. What he heard prompted him to message Scott, she said. The jury saw the texts from the ex-partner, which included ‘‘pull your f...... head in c...’’ and ‘‘f...... rich f...... prick asshole’’. Scott phoned police about the messages and said he was worried the man might have access to a gun. In the 111 call played to the jury, the complainant can be heard providing Scott with information to help with his complaint. The woman said Scott told her to lie when she spoke to police and say her ex-partner was planning on going to Scott’s house to hurt him. When police came to her workplace to speak about the incident, she told them Scott wanted her to lie, but did not bring up the alleged assault. When she did her evidential video interview giving details about the allegations of rape and other assaults by Scott, she again did not bring up that he allegedly pushed her against a wall. The first mention of the incident was five months after her evidential video interview and only days after her ex-partner had given his formal statement to police. Defence counsel Fiona Guy Kidd KC said this was because she was making the incident up. ‘‘The truth ... was to tell [police] that he had sent these messages after you’d been assaulted ... and you didn’t tell the police that.’’ The complainant told the jury she was ‘‘not ready to share to the world what he was doing to me’’. Her ex-partner gave evidence about the phone call. ‘‘She was saying to him ‘let me go, put me down’ — I could hear that. ‘‘He was just yelling and screaming in an angry tone.’’ The former partner also did not give this information to police at the time, despite being contacted by them about the messages. Ms Guy Kidd again suggested that was because the incident never happened. Hearing the woman screaming and saying ‘‘put me down’’ would have been the reason for sending the messages, yet he did not tell police about that at the time, she said. The ex-partner responded he thought police would have attended the incident and spoken to the woman about it. Ms Guy Kidd also suggested the woman was lying about how often she was allegedly forced to have sex with Scott because he sometimes struggled to get aroused. The complainant responded ‘‘this man is a sex maniac’’. ‘‘I’m telling you now, he is, he wants sex all the time.’’ Ms Guy Kidd asked the complainant about a ‘‘very short red tartan skirt’’ she wore for the defendant and described it as a ‘‘schoolgirl outfit’’. She accepted wearing the clothing, but only in the context of consensual sexual activity and denied it was a school uniform. Scott and the complainant would ‘‘role play’’ while she wore the outfit, Ms Guy Kidd suggested. But the woman said that never happened. The trial continues. felicity.dear@odt.co.nz
