R v Roussos (a pseudonym) - [2024] NSWDC 498

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Roussos (a pseudonym) (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 498
Hearing dates: 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 March 2024, 5 April 2024 and 28 June 2024.
Date of orders: 25 September 2024
Decision date: 25 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Not Guilty of intimidation and Not Guilty of common assault (related offence).

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge-alone — Reasons of trial judge — One count of intimidation and related offence of common assault — Previous serious sexual assault charges dropped on day 1 of the trial — Matter remained in District Court — Duplicity of charges — Multiple inconsistencies between complainant and accused — Volatile and toxic relationship — Not Guilty verdict.

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Demis Roussos (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Buck (Crown)
H Blake (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mitchell & Co. Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00306115
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of evidence that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant in accordance with section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900.

VERDICT JUDGMENT

This trial related to two offences which are not prescribed sexual offences. However, in the course of this judgment I will refer to prescribed sexual offences which were alleged and subsequently discontinued. Notwithstanding that proceedings which had been initiated with respect to the alleged prescribed sexual offences have been finally disposed of, the prohibition against publishing any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant continues to apply pursuant to s 578A(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Accordingly, pseudonyms have been substituted with respect to the original complainant and by virtue of their relationship, the name of the accused and other persons whose identification would likely lead to identification of the complainant.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Demis Roussos pleaded Not Guilty upon arraignment in the District Court on 19 March 2024 to a single count alleging intimidation by the accused of his then partner Ms Nana Mouskouri on 2 October 2022. Such an offence contravenes section 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. An additional allegation of a summary common assault contrary to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 was also brought before the court pursuant to the provisions of section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
In due course those two allegations proceeded before me as a judge-alone trial. However, the circumstances in which the matter came before the court and continued as a trial in the District Court are somewhat unusual.
The fact that a trial based essentially upon allegations of verbal intimidation of a domestic partner and an alleged common assault constituted by a single push in the back has proceeded as a reasonably extensive trial in the District Court over six hearing days and involving nine witnesses and almost 400 pages of transcript, excluding the written submissions, requires some understanding of the background.
The alleged criminal conduct arose in the context of a domestic relationship between the accused and Ms Nana Mouskouri. Each of the complainant and the accused was born in 1982. They both turned 40 years of age in 2022. They initially had contact with each other in early April 2022 through the social media application TikTok.
They first met in person at the Novotel Hotel at Brighton in Sydney on 10 April 2022. Thereafter they commenced a romantic relationship.
When the lease came to an end at the premises which Ms Mouskouri was renting in St Ives towards the end of May 2022, she moved in to live with the accused in the small two-bedroom apartment which he shared with his mother in Georges River Road, Jannali.
None of the three persons living in the small apartment were employed at the time. The relationship appeared to be hot and cold and the Crown case included a great deal of detail with respect to the ongoing nature of the variable situation between the complainant and the accused.
After a period of approximately 3 weeks, the relationship broke up and the complainant moved out of the premises. She moved to live with her parents on their farm close to the Queensland border. She remained with her parents for approximately a month during July 2022 and then reconnected with the accused and moved back in to live with him in early August 2022.
The resumed relationship would appear to have been somewhat complex. The complainant was anxious to have a baby with the accused and he apparently had a medical consultation in order to have his sperm tested. There continued to be some problems as a consequence of continuing to live in the small two-bedroom apartment together with the accused’s mother. The evidence in due course examined in minute detail the ongoing nature of the relationship.
In late September 2022 the complainant attended upon a medical practitioner complaining of stress, shortness of breath, and chest pain.
According to the account of the complainant she was stuck in an abusive and controlling domestic situation.
The variable and tempestuous nature of the emotions between the complainant and the accused were examined in detail and also revealed in screenshots of many SMS messages between them. These highlighted extreme variation between complaints of abuse on the one hand and expressions of undying love on the other.
On Sunday, 2 October 2022 the complainant and the accused drove from their apartment to shops adjacent to Jannali railway station. The circumstances surrounding that drive and the impetuous interaction between them at a small restaurant called the Jolie Café at the Jannali shops ultimately gave rise to the first count in the indictment before this Court, namely an allegation of intimidation.
The extreme variability in the relationship at that time is reflected in the circumstance that they had been making plans to get married some 3 days later, on Wednesday, 5 October 2022.
In due course the complainant and the accused returned to the apartment.
Later that night, the allegations by the complainant subsequently included that she had decided to leave the accused and she attempted to pack her belongings so she could leave the apartment.
According to her account the accused told her that she was not leaving, threw her belongings everywhere in the apartment, and pushed her in the back with two hands saying: “You’re not leaving.”
This allegation forms the basis of the summary charge of common assault which is before this Court pursuant to a section 166 certificate.
According to the complainant, notwithstanding what had occurred, she felt compelled to stay at the apartment with the accused and his mother.
The following day, 3 October 2022, the accused had gone out from the apartment and during the course of the morning, exchanged a series of SMS messages with the complainant. This exchange included the accused sending messages which included: “Let’s move forward for our future” accompanied by a love heart emoji. The complainant responded with a love heart emoji. The accused then sent a message saying: “Love you” accompanied by a red lips emoji, to which the complainant sent back a smiling emoji with love hearts.
The next day the accused and the complainant checked into a hotel room at the Shangri-La Hotel in The Rocks area in Sydney in anticipation of their intended nuptials the following day.
On 5 October 2022 they got married at a Greek Orthodox Church and after dining at the Casino, returned to the Shangri-La Hotel where they spent another night.
They then returned home to the apartment in Jannali on 6 October 2022.
In due course, the evidence in the trial examined the relationship during the following week, including the details of some of the communications between them.
On 12 October 2022 the complainant left the apartment and checked into the Shangri-La Hotel alone.
The following morning, 13 October 2022, the accused called the complainant and told her to collect her belongings as he was going to throw them out. She called triple-0 and reported that the accused was abusing her and had just threatened to kill her, and that she wanted assistance to attend the apartment and get her belongings.
The complainant then travelled from The Rocks to the apartment in Jannali arriving shortly after 8:30am.
The accused was not home, and notwithstanding that the police had not responded, she took the opportunity to retrieve her belongings.
After leaving the apartment with her belongings the complainant attended Sutherland Police Station.
She apparently gave an extensive statement to police in which she made allegations of intimidation which she said had occurred during the period between 1 July 2022 and 13 October 2022 (sequence 1); an allegation of common assault which was particularised in the Court Attendance Notice as having occurred between midnight and 11am on 7 October 2022 (sequence 2); and six separate allegations of sexual intercourse without consent which were particularised as having occurred between 6am and 8am on 7 October 2022 (Sequence 3); a second allegation of sexual intercourse without consent during the same time period on 7 October 2022 (Sequence 4); an act of intercourse without consent later the same day but in the evening between 8pm and 9pm (Sequence 5); an allegation of a further act of sexual intercourse without consent particularised as having occurred some time between just after midnight on 7 October 2022 and just before midnight on 8 October 2022 (Sequence 6); a second act of sexual intercourse during the same time period on 8 October 2022 (Sequence 7); and a further act of sexual intercourse without consent on 9 October 2022 (Sequence 8).
The accused was arrested and charged on 13 October 2022 with the various offences which had been preferred, including the multiple serious allegations of sexual intercourse without consent. He was refused bail and remained in custody until granted bail, according to the court file, on 12 December 2022.
He was subsequently charged with breach of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order as a consequence of calls made from the gaol which were the subject of tender in the present proceedings.
He remained on bail until committed for trial to the District Court on 1 June 2023. The six counts of sexual intercourse without consent and the separate charge of intimidation were the subject of that committal. The summary offence of common assault was referred to the District Court pursuant to a section 166 certificate.
A plea of Not Guilty was entered upon arraignment on 30 June 2023 and a trial date was fixed for 18 March 2024 with an estimate of 10 days.
On 14 March 2024, the trial date and the estimate were confirmed, and an application for severance of the counts was listed to be heard on 18 March 2024.
On 18 March 2024, the Court was advised that the proposed trial indictment, including the sexual intercourse without consent charges, would not proceed.
On 19 March 2024, a fresh indictment was presented containing a single count of intimidation and the sexual intercourse without consent charges were formally withdrawn. The matter thereafter proceeded as a judge-alone trial.
It is appropriate to observe that the allegations which proceeded in this Court, if it had been intended that the serious sexual assault matters were not to proceed, could readily and appropriately have been dealt with in the Local Court.

ELECTION FOR JUDGE-ALONE TRIAL

An election by the accused under section 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for a trial by judge-alone was consented to by the Crown. In such circumstances the Court had no discretion and the matter, accordingly, proceeded as a judge-alone trial.
Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 sets out the provisions which are applicable to a verdict by a single judge on the question of the guilt of an accused person. Subsection (2) requires that the judge must include in his or her judgment the principles of law that the judge has applied and the findings of fact on which the judge relies.
The requirements of a trial judge sitting alone as to the giving of reasons were considered by the High Court in AK v Western Australia (2008) HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438. A trial judge is required to summarise the crucial arguments of the parties, to formulate the issues for decision, and to resolve any issues of law and fact that need to be determined. To comply with ss 133(2) and 133(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as required by the decision of the High Court in Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250, I remind myself of the following principles of law.

FUNCTION

As the accused has pleaded not guilty and elected to proceed to a trial by judge- alone it becomes my duty and responsibility to consider whether the accused is Guilty or Not Guilty of the charge and return my verdict according to the evidence. As the tribunal of fact, I am required to make findings of fact from the evidence that has been presented and then apply the relevant legal principles to those findings of fact. The findings of fact must be drawn only from the evidence that has been presented. There can be no intrusion into that finding by considerations of sympathy, bias, prejudice or any other emotion.

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF

It is convenient to start with some general principles.
The burden of proof of the guilt of the accused rests upon the Crown. That onus rests upon the Crown in respect of every element of each of the charges. There is no onus of proof on the accused at all. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence. It is for the Crown to prove his guilt and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown does not have to prove, however, every single fact in the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The onus which rests upon the Crown is to prove the elements of the respective charges beyond reasonable doubt. That is the high standard of proof that the Crown must achieve before I can convict the accused of any of the counts in the indictment.
It is vitally important to remind myself that the accused must not be found guilty if any one of the essential ingredients or elements of the respective charges has not been proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt.
It follows that if I am left unable to decide whether the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in relation to any such element or ingredient, even though I might suspect the accused of that matter, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and I must in such circumstance find him Not Guilty with respect to that charge.
In a criminal trial there is only one ultimate issue: Has the Crown proved the guilt of the accused with respect to the respective charged count beyond reasonable doubt? If the answer is “Yes”, the appropriate verdict is Guilty; if the answer is “No”, the verdict must be Not Guilty.
Although an accused person is entitled to give or to call evidence in a criminal trial there is no obligation upon him to do so. The Crown bears the onus of satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offences which have been charged. The accused bears no onus of proof in respect of any fact that is in dispute.
The accused is presumed to be innocent until and unless I have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence led by the Crown that he is guilty of the particular offence charged. Therefore it follows that the accused is entitled to say nothing and make the Crown prove his guilt to the high standard which is required.

LIBERATO DIRECTION

In the present trial the accused did give evidence. However, that fact does not cause the burden of proof to shift in any way. If I accept the account given in evidence by the accused with respect to a particular charge, he must be acquitted of that charge.
If I do not accept his account but find that it is a reasonable possibility, I similarly must return a verdict of Not Guilty.
If, on the other hand, I reject the version advanced by the accused and am not satisfied that it provides a reasonably possible version of the events, I must put his evidence to one side and focus on the evidence led by the Crown in order to determine whether the Crown has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the particular charge.

INFERENCES AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

I may in my role as the judge of the facts draw inferences from direct evidence. I may only draw an inference adverse to the accused from proven facts if such inference is a reasonable inference that can properly be drawn from those facts. The present case is fundamentally a direct evidence case relying principally as it does upon the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses who were physically present.
There are however some surrounding circumstances in the present matter from which the Crown seeks that inferences be drawn from established facts to draw a conclusion as to the existence of further facts.
To the extent that such aspects of the case rely upon circumstantial and objective evidence, I remind myself of some fundamental principles.
How convincing and reliable a circumstantial inference may be depends upon the number and nature of the basic facts relied upon by the Crown when considered as a whole. The question as to whether all of the evidence in a particular respect leads to an unavoidable conclusion requires careful consideration.

WITNESSES

It is for me to assess the witnesses called in the trial and to decide whether they are reliable. Reliability depends upon two different but sometimes overlapping considerations. One is the witness’s honesty and the other is the witness’s accuracy. The honesty of a witness involves considering not only what the witness said or perhaps did not say, but also the impression the witness has made on me in my capacity as the tribunal of fact.
In the present matter the Crown case largely depends on an acceptance of the reliability of the complainant. That being so, unless I am satisfied ultimately beyond reasonable doubt that she is honest and accurate with respect to the elements of the individual count in the indictment and in the summary offence about which she has given evidence, I cannot find the accused guilty of the particular charge.

COMPLAINT

The Crown seeks to rely upon evidence of complaint to a witness, Rochelle Griggs, with respect to the count in the indictment. If I find that the complaint in that matter was made in the way alleged by the Crown, I can use evidence of what was said in the complaint as some evidence that the incident, the subject of the charge being considered, did occur. That is, I can use it as some evidence independent of the evidence given by the complainant.

A tribunal of fact is entitled to consider whether a complaint is made at a time and in a manner that would indicate that the allegation was reliable. That is, that the allegation is less likely to have been fabricated by a complainant and is more likely to be accurate.

Ultimately, it is a matter for me as to whether I draw that conclusion in this trial with respect to the particular allegation. If complaint evidence is used as some evidence in relation to a specific count, what weight is to be given to the evidence is a matter for me as the tribunal of fact.

MURRAY DIRECTION

I remind myself of the appropriate direction where there is one witness essential to the Crown case with respect to a particular count. Accordingly, I give myself a so-called “Murray” direction with respect to the complainant and remind myself that unless I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant is both an honest and accurate witness with respect to the elements of the particular offence, in the account she has given, I cannot find the accused Guilty of the count in the indictment.

I must examine the evidence very carefully to satisfy myself that I can safely act upon that evidence to the high standard that is required in a criminal trial. The need for particular caution arises because of the onus and standard of proof placed upon the Crown. I am of course clearly entitled to convict the accused based on the evidence of the complainant provided I have carefully examined and satisfied myself that it is reliable beyond reasonable doubt.
In considering whether the complainant’s evidence does satisfy me to the requisite standard I should, of course, look to see if it is supported by other evidence.

EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL

The evidence in the trial commenced with the complainant, Nana Mouskouri. She described the circumstances of meeting with the accused in early April 2022 and moving in to live with him and his mother approximately six weeks after meeting him.
She was asked to tell the Court what her relationship was like with the accused. She immediately proffered: “He was very controlling, manipulative. He would lie to me. He would put me down. I was – he was violent. He abused me, including sexual assault.”
Whilst arguably permissible as general context evidence, particularly if the originally presented indictment had proceeded, the evidence, and the tenor of the evidence which followed, was somewhat remote from the allegation of a common assault and an act of intimidation alleged to have occurred in October.
Following an objection to the generality of what the complainant was describing, she was taken to more particular description. She said: “he assaulted me in the bedroom. He – he pushed me around. He pushed me. He put his hands around my throat, tried to choke me. He drove fast in the car trying to scare me, wanting – putting fear in me.” She then added “he was very violent in the bedroom.”
In an endeavour to try and understand how an apparent romantic relationship which had blossomed quickly and led to a decision to live together had resulted in such an outcome, the Court asked a number of questions of the complainant. These established that she had been happy initially when she had moved in to live with him, but that after about three weeks he had wanted to talk to other women and was being unfaithful to her and, in her words, he “kicked her out.”
The complainant said she then went back to live with her parents on their farm near the Queensland border. She stayed with them for a month in July.
However, in early August the relationship resumed and she moved back to Sydney and back in to live with the accused and his mother in the apartment at Jannali. She said it was during the first two weeks of August after the accused had got out of hospital.
After she moved back in they decided to get married.
She was then taken directly to the date of the alleged intimidation in the single charge in the indictment, namely Sunday, 2 October 2022.
She recalled that on that morning she had wanted to go for a walk. She said that the accused did not want her to leave the place without him and that he took her car keys, her handbag and her phone.
She said that they then decided to leave together and that they drove in her car to get some breakfast. She was driving.
She described the route that they took, ultimately to the shops at Jannali. A number of maps were tendered and the route marked (Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #2).
After they got to the shops, but could not decide what they were going to eat, she decided to drive back towards the accused’s home.
Close to his home she said the accused told her to stop and said he wanted to drive. They swapped seats and he drove off “at speed.” She said that she was scared and feared for her life. She said he was doing at least 100 kph and he took off through the roundabout near the Shell petrol station on Georges River Road.
She said that she was begging him to stop the car. He kept driving and said he was going to kill her and crash into a house.
She drew on the map the route that she claimed he had driven. They ultimately ended up back at the same shops in Jannali and she said that he parked outside a café called Jolie Café. The complainant said that he told her to “now go buy me breakfast.” She said that she grabbed her handbag and just ran out of the car and ran straight into the café and ordered a coffee and then sat down behind the counter, behind where the barista was.
She said that the barista could see she was upset and offered her a glass of water. At that point the accused came into the café and told her to get back into the car. She said “no” and asked for her car keys back. She said people were watching and were concerned.
She described the reaction from various people including an older male in his sixties who told the accused: “Don’t ever speak to a woman like that.”
The complainant described the accused saying: “She’s my wife. I can do whatever I want.”
She said the barista asked her: “Have you got anywhere else to go? Don’t go back to him, it’s not safe.”
She described the pitch of the accused’s voice as angry and aggressive.
She could not recall whether some of this interaction occurred inside or outside the café. She also described a woman approaching her and giving her a Post-it note with her phone number and telling her: “If you need any help, call me.”
The complainant said that the accused then left and walked across the road and back up Georges River Road in the direction of his home.
She went back to the car where she saw the car keys were still in the ignition and her phone was also in the car. She had her handbag with her.
The complainant then got into the car and drove towards Como Park. When she got there she parked the car and walked down towards the water and sat on a park bench.
She then exchanged a series of SMS messages with the accused. Those text messages were tendered as Exhibit #3.
They included the following exchange:

Complainant: “What you did to me is unacceptable.”
Complainant: “U hurt me. My back and neck is hurt. How could you do such a thing. Very sad (Sad Emoji)… Enough is enough.”
Accused: “How did it happen?”
Accused: “Please Nana I love you… I didn’t touch you”
Accused: “Where [sic] still getting married on Wednesday just get it checked if it’s from the bed or car”

During the time she was at Como Park she and the accused also had a number of phone conversations.
On the complainant’s account her reference to her back and neck being hurt was a reference to how she felt bodily after the car driving incident.
She ultimately told the accused that she was at Yaya’s place, which was a reference to his grandmother’s unit. She had driven there when they had arranged to meet there during the phone conversations.
After she arrived at the grandmother’s unit, the accused also arrived with his mother. She made no complaint to anyone about what had allegedly happened that morning.
In due course she and the accused left together and drove down to Ramsgate Beach. They went for a walk along the beach together. They had discussions about the impending marriage, which was planned for the upcoming Wednesday, 5 October 2022.
However, after returning to the unit she said that she decided to leave. She said that she was upset and wanted to leave. She said he did not want her to leave and prevented her from leaving by throwing her belongings all over the place.
The complainant said that he said to her: “you’re not leaving me” and pushed her with his hands on her back. She said it was very tense.
She said that she then gave up and stayed.
In her evidence-in-chief, she was then asked if it was correct that after that Sunday, 2 October, on the following Wednesday, 5 October, she got married. The complainant replied: “yes, unfortunately.”
No details of the marriage itself, or of the ensuing days, were led in-Chief.
She was next taken to the following Wednesday, 12 October 2022. She said that she remembered that day in particular because it was the day that she “escaped domestic violence.”
She described the accused having a dental appointment, and her wanting to get her nails done. Despite the best efforts of counsel, the complainant repeatedly dropped in references to the accused being on bail and being due to appear in court.
She said that she had to go and pick up dry-cleaning for him “getting him ready for court the next day.”
She then said that she got into her car and went and stayed at a hotel in the city on her own.
A large number of text messages between the accused and the complainant were then tendered as Exhibit #4.
I do not propose to set out the detail of those texts. It suffices to observe that the general tenor of them indicates the hot and cold nature of their relationship. One of the messages from her indicated that she was waiting for his mother to put some cash into the account as she did not have enough money until after midnight that night. She said that he made her feel awful and that asking her to leave that morning was playing “mind games” with her. He asked that she come home and said that he had dinner for them. He told her that he loved her. She replied that his actions did not show love.
The accused told her that she had her period and was sensitive and said he was sorry. She told him that he mistreated her and that his mother had destroyed the marriage.
In her evidence the complainant explained that the reference to cash was that she had the accused’s credit card with her to pick up his suit and her wedding dress from the drycleaners. The card did not have sufficient money in it for her to be able to use it at the drycleaners.
She said she went back home to the apartment briefly and returned his card and then left and checked into the Shangri-La Hotel for the night where she said she stayed on her own.
The following morning, after she had stayed out overnight, she said the accused telephoned her and said he was going to throw all of her belongings out.
She called triple-0 and reported his abuse.
She then checked out of the hotel and returned to the apartment at Jannali. The accused was not home at the time and she gathered up her belongings and left. In the course of gathering her belongings she said that she noticed some of her jewellery was missing.
She then went to Sutherland police station where she provided a statement.
Her evidence-in-chief then dealt with the circumstance of a visit she had with a general practitioner in September 2022 when she said she had been experiencing a tight chest because of the stress in her relationship. She said that the accused had been close by to the doctor’s door and accordingly she could not say too much to the doctor.
That concluded her evidence-in-chief.
In cross-examination, the complainant agreed that the apartment was too small for three persons to live there and that she had said she did not want to live in that apartment. The complainant said that both she and the accused wanted to move out on their own.
The complainant agreed that after moving back in in August 2022 the accused went to get his sperm tested. She denied that they had started an IVF program.
She did, however, agree that they were quite eager to have a baby. She agreed that they both wanted to get married.
The complainant was cross-examined about the nature of her attitude towards the accused’s mother after she had moved back into the apartment. She denied that she had told the accused that she did not like his mother and that she did not trust her.
She was then shown a series of screenshots from her mobile phone from 19 August 2022 in which she had said she could not stay at his place anymore as she was too stressed. She also said that his mum was getting in the way of them and that she did not trust her. The complainant agreed that that was what the text message said.
She then agreed that was not the first time she had raised such issues with the accused, nor was it the last.
It was then put to the complainant that she suffered anxiety and had had a series of stress or panic attacks during the period after she and the accused got back together. The complainant denied that proposition.
A series of questions and suggestions were put to the complainant about whether she had exhibited rapid breathing, crying, and anxiety during that period. In broad terms the complainant either denied the proposition or said that she could not recall.
She did agree that she experienced tightness in her chest in September 2022 which led her to attend upon a doctor. She agreed that she told the doctor that she was having issues in her relationship and that she was stressed.
She agreed that she had had similar symptoms some months earlier and an ambulance had been called. On that occasion she had been checked over by a paramedic and had not gone to hospital.
On the occasion of the complainant attending the general practitioner in September 2022 it was suggested that she had been prescribed the drug Ativan by the doctor. The complainant said that she could not recall. I should observe in passing that the court is aware that Ativan is a prescription drug utilised in the treatment of an anxiety disorder.
It was also put to the complainant that she told the doctor that she had previously been prescribed Zoloft. The complainant said that she could not remember but that she was not on Zoloft in 2022. I should similarly note that the court is aware that Zoloft is prescribed in respect of major depressive disorders. The complainant said that she thought she had taken Zoloft once previously but could not remember what year.
The cross-examination continued, in some detail, as to whether or not the accused had been outside the door of the consultation room while the complainant was seeing the doctor. The complainant claimed that she did not tell the doctor everything because the accused was able to hear what she was saying.
It was put to her that he had gone and parked the car. The complainant agreed, but said he then came up and accompanied her into the ECG room and was then in the waiting room. She was shown a screenshot of a message from that day telling her where he was parked in the car (Exhibit #6). She agreed the message said: “I’m just parked on the side.” However, when it was suggested that once she was finished at the doctors, she came outside and met the accused where she knew he was parked, she disagreed.
Cross-examination then turned to the topic of whether they had both expressed a desire to live together somewhere else. The complainant agreed that they had and that they had both been and looked at places together.
She was then taken through a detailed narrative of what had unfolded on the morning of 2 October 2022 before they left the apartment. It suffices to observe that she did not agree with the account given to her. Significantly, it was put to her that she had the car keys when they went down and got into the car. She did not agree with that proposition.
In contradistinction to the account given by the complainant, it was put to her in cross-examination that she did not in fact drive down to the shops first before swapping with the accused. It was put to her that she did not drive at all before they went to the Jolie Café that morning.
It was further put to her that she had said nothing in her first statement to police on 13 October 2022 and subsequently on 20 October 2022 about having driven herself before the accused then drove them to the shops that morning. She agreed that the first time she had told the police that the accused had told her to pull over and told her to swap seats was in a statement provided on the previous Friday immediately before the trial was due to commence.
She was then taken to her second police statement dated 20 October 2022 and the portion of it where she described the car having been parked underneath the apartment block and the circumstance of the accused driving it out of the car park area and turning left onto Georges River Road before going to the shops. She had earlier agreed that the contents of the statement were true.
The complainant was taken to the difference between that statement and her evidence. She said the only difference was the location at which they swapped seats.
With respect to her evidence regarding the speed at which the accused was alleged to have been driving, she had said in her evidence-in-chief that she saw the speed on the dashboard. In the course of cross-examination she agreed that she had never said that she could see the speed on the dashboard in any of the police statements. She said that it “felt” like they were doing 100. She denied having made up the fact of seeing the speed on the dashboard in the course of her evidence.
There was then a considerable amount of cross-examination regarding the precise route taken while the accused was driving to the Jannali shops. A map illustrating a slightly different route was tendered as Exhibit #7.
It was suggested to the complainant that the accused had driven through the roundabout, but at a speed not exceeding 60 km per hour. She disagreed with that proposition.
It was put to her that she told the accused to slow down, and that he did so immediately. The complainant disagreed with that proposition.
There was then a detailed narrative put to her regarding the circumstances of their attendance at the Jolie Café. It suffices for present purposes to observe that she disagreed with, effectively, all of the propositions put to her about those circumstances. The cross-examination extended over many pages of transcript which I do not intend to replicate in these reasons.
The complainant was taken to her first police statement in which she had said that bystanders had begun yelling at the accused to give the complainant her keys back. According to that statement, the accused was holding on to the keys and not letting her have them back.
The complainant agreed that that statement was corrected in a subsequent statement.
The complainant was then taken through the text messages in Exhibit #3. With respect to her assertion in her evidence-in-chief in which she suggested that her back and neck were hurting because of whiplash in respect of his driving, she agreed she had never seen a doctor in relation to whiplash in respect of his driving that day. She also agreed she had never complained to police that she had experienced whiplash as a consequence of his driving. In cross-examination, she said her body had been tense from his driving. It was suggested to her that her back and neck were sore from the bed that she shared with the accused. She disagreed. However, she did agree that a bed topper had been purchased to put on the mattress of that bed.
It was put to her that the bed topper was purchased because of pain that she experienced as a result of the bed. She disagreed and volunteered: “There was abuse in that bed. Sexual abuse where I was in a lot of pain.”
After being taken through the events of that afternoon, the complainant agreed that they had returned to the apartment at Jannali. She disagreed with the proposition that there had not been any argument that night. She also disagreed that the accused had not thrown any of her belongings around the apartment and that he did not push her.
She was then shown text messages from the following day, 3 October 2022. Those messages, including a heart emoji and two hands pressed up against each other, were sent during that morning while the complainant was at the hairdressers getting ready for their upcoming wedding. In response from the complainant to the accused, she told him that she had permanently deleted her TikTok account. It was suggested the reason she had done that was because she had been defrauded by another person who she had been in contact with through TikTok. She disagreed.
However, she did agree that a source of ongoing distress for her had been a man referred to as “The Palestinian Warrior” who stole $36,000 out of her bank account. She agreed it had been a cause of stress at that time and that she and accused had made complaint to police at Sutherland Police Station regarding that defrauding at some time in August or September 2022. However, she maintained that that was not what she was referring to in the message.

The complainant agreed that at 10:47am she had sent a heart emoji back to the accused. It was suggested to her that that was not the action of someone who had been assaulted the night before. The complainant agreed that she sent the message but also said that she had been assaulted. The sequence of screenshots of those messages were tendered as Exhibit #8.
The following day, 4 October 2022, would appear to have been occupied to some extent by arrangements being made for the wedding the following day. In due course, the complainant checked into the Shangri-La Hotel, where she was joined by the accused.
In the course of an interaction between them in the hotel room, it was suggested that the complainant had made a fist with her hand and swung her arm at the accused’s face where it collided with his left eye. The complainant agreed that her hand “did touch his face, yes.” She claimed that it was in the context of, in effect, a sexual assault and that she had done that in defending herself.
She agreed that she had never told police about such an incident. When shown a photograph taken the following day, 5 October 2022, when they were married, she agreed the accused had a black eye on their wedding day (Exhibit #9).
It is appropriate to observe that an alleged sexual assault on 4 October 2022 was not the subject of any complaint to police and did not result in a Court Attendance Notice.
Cross-examination then moved to the next day, 6 October 2022. The complainant agreed that they checked out of the Shangri-La on that day and returned to the Jannali apartment. The accused’s mother, Jenny Roussos, was there and had a cake for them which said: “Demis and Nana together forever.”
It was put to the complainant that on the day of their return to the apartment and during the following week she regularly raised her dissatisfaction with remaining in the small apartment with the accused’s mother. Whilst disagreeing with bringing the topic up daily, she agreed that she was disappointed that a promised plan to move out to their own apartment had not occurred.
The complainant was then taken to a series of text messages between herself and the accused on Friday, 7 October 2022. Those messages included complaint about it being their wedding time, yet the complainant had been taken “back to your yucky place.” The messages also included: “This time is meant to be happy, but you didn’t take me anywhere nice. Going back to your shit place isn’t my idea of having a comfortable time.”
The complainant had volunteered that a reference to the previous night being awful and not sleeping was in respect of a sexual assault. It was put to her that the messages were nothing to do with a sexual assault and that one of the messages from her was: “My back is sore from your bed.”
Notwithstanding a message from the complainant: “I’m not going to live there with your mum. We are married now. Get a job and grow up. You aren’t listening to me”, the complainant disagreed that this reflected the ongoing argument that she had with the accused about not wanting to live in the apartment with his mother.
Taken to the reference to her back being sore from the bed, she disagreed that that was part of an ongoing issue about how uncomfortable his bed was.
The series of text messages from 7 October 2022 became Exhibit #10. That exhibit also included loving photos of the happy couple on their wedding day.
After being taken through the text messages it was again put to the complainant that the topic of disagreement with where they were living continued to be raised effectively daily through the following week. She did not agree. It was also put to her that she continually put the accused down during the course of that week. The complainant did not agree.
She was next taken to things which were said to have occurred on 12 October, the day before she went to police. She agreed that that day or on some day prior, she had heard the accused and his mother discussing the topic of an annulment of the marriage. She agreed she had discussions about that topic with the accused.
The complainant then disagreed that that conversation took place on the morning of 12 October. She did agree that at some point the accused left the apartment and went to a dental appointment, while she left to get her nails done.
In due course on the 12^th of October, the complainant did not go back to the apartment but checked into the Shangri-La Hotel in the city on her own. The accused sent her a number of messages enquiring as to where she was. A series of screenshots of text messages between the accused and the complainant from approximately 9:30pm that night were then shown to her.
In the course of those messages the accused offered to book a room at Star City for a few nights so that they could spend some time together. The complainant responded by telling him to book it for the next night. The accused said that he would stay one night and that she could have a couple of days by herself if she would like and relax. The complainant responded: “Why are you only going to stay one night?”
The following morning at 2:41am, the complainant sent a message to the accused telling him that she was bleeding everywhere and that she needed to get some pads. He replied that he was coming and that he would call when downstairs. He asked what room she was staying in at the Shangri-La. The complainant asked him if he was going to help and he replied “Yes babe” with a heart emoji. The complainant sent a further message asking where she was going to stay the next night as she did not have anywhere to go. She said that the accused had told her to leave that morning and he asked why she wanted to argue.
In cross-examination, the complainant was asked why she would have asked the accused “Why are you only going to stay one night?” if she had in fact been abused by him and she had escaped. The complainant replied: “I was abused.” Ms Blake, counsel for the accused, put to the witness: “You wouldn’t be asking him to stay with you at all if you really thought he had abused you, would you?” The complainant responded: “He did.” When asked: “Why are you asking him why he’s only staying one night then?” The complainant then became distressed and asked for a break. When the question was put again after a short adjournment, the complainant said she did not know why she had asked that question.
The content of phone calls between the complainant and the accused was then put to the complainant. She disagreed about the suggestions. She complained the accused had said he was going to throw her clothes out, and disagreed with the proposition that he said he was going to leave them at the door.
She then spoke to her mother following which she called Triple-0. Following the call to police, the complainant returned to the apartment at Jannali. She said she knew he was not there that morning and she collected her belongings before going to Sutherland Police Station where she made her first police statement.
The complainant was then taken to the content of the triple-0 call which was tendered as Exhibit #12. In the course of that call, the complainant told the operator: “He’s just threatened to kill me.” The complainant said that that was a general comment and not referring specifically to a threat at that time.
The complainant was taken to the topic of her assertions in her evidence-in-chief that the accused had been controlling, manipulative and violent. It was put to her that none of that was true. She was then shown a series of screenshots and messages of some 100 pages extending between 13 August 2022 and 26 August 2022 which included photos of the happy couple, references to the Kogarah Fertility Clinic, expressions of love between each of them, and hyperlinks to properties for inspection.
When asked to point to any of the messages which were consistent with manipulation, or violence, or him being controlling, the complainant said that she could not identify individual messages but that his behaviour in her view was controlling and playing on her emotions. The complainant said that the expressions of love and adoration towards her were lies from the accused.
The complainant was next taken to a transcript of a phone call between herself and the accused on 4 November 2022. He had contacted her from custody after he had been charged and bail refused. In the course of that conversation she told the accused that he had been “a coward” for listening to his mother.
The complainant said that the accused thought he was above the law and that he had been encouraged to breach the AVO by his mother. She said that he “tried to destroy my life. It’s not just… it’s not acceptable.” She was asked whether she blamed his mother and the complainant said in her evidence: “I blame the domestic violence and the abuse - - - the sexual assault that I experienced, that’s why he went to gaol… to put on remand.” It was put to the complainant that the accused had never sexually assaulted her. She responded: “He did.”
Further cross-examination dealt with additional complaints by the complainant regarding the accused. She complained regarding the breach of the ADVO by virtue of the phone calls she received in November. Subsequently in December 2022, she made complaint at Liverpool Police Station that the accused was accessing her email and phone without consent. She also subsequently in March 2024 complained that he was bullying her on TikTok by posting matters which she could not see because he had blocked her.
In re-examination, the complainant volunteered that she had paid for the entire wedding and that she had paid for the holidays they went on. She said she bought the accused a TAG watch for $3,500 and an 18-carat gold chain for $3,300. The complainant went on to say that she paid for restaurants and that everything came out of her pocket for the majority of the relationship. She said that the accused was happy to use her and financially abuse her.
Additional re-examination led to the tender of images from Google Maps street view showing some portions of the route supposedly driven on 2 October 2022. A photocopy of the post-it note received from one of the witnesses at the Jolie Café was also tendered as Exhibit #16 as well as further copies of messages between the two parties.
Additional material having been tendered during re-examination, further cross-examination was permitted. That included messages regarding the money that the complainant had been defrauded of. She had messaged the accused regarding that circumstance: “One of the worst days of my life.” He had responded: “Don’t worry honey, I’m your ray of sunshine.” Ms Mouskouri responded to the cross-examiner: “Well that’s a lie.” She did however agree that she had responded with a heart emoji to that message.
The next witness was Bi Mei Huang. Mr Huang was the owner of Café Jolie. His recollection was that the events had occurred on a Saturday. He had provided police with a statement approximately 3 weeks later on 23 October 2022. He recalled a lady coming in and ordering a coffee. He didn’t see her order the coffee, and when he noticed her, she was sitting at the table.
The witness said he heard the boys say she ordered coffee, but he didn’t notice that she ordered coffee from them. He delivered the coffee to her and said she “has a little red eyes or something when I delivered coffee… I saw she just looked sad.” He said that she looked like she had been crying. A bit later he observed a man come in and talk to her. He said the man was just saying “Let’s go home and talk.” He recalled the woman saying to “give me the key, or bag or something”.
Mr Huang was asked if he had any memory of the volume of the man’s voice and he responded that it was “Just normal. Like, yeah, just normal, man’s like ‘let’s go home’.”
The next witness was Rochelle Griggs. She said that she was on her way to an appointment in Jannali. She was walking up from the intersection between Railway Crescent and Box Road when she heard some loud yelling which caught her attention. As she drew closer to Café Jolie the yelling got louder and she noticed a man yelling to a woman inside the café. The man was in his car which was parked immediately outside the café and the woman was inside the café.
The witness claimed that she first heard the yelling when she was at the corner of Box Street and Railway Crescent which she estimated to be a distance of 100 to 150 metres away. Ms Griggs said that as she got closer to the cafe she saw that the man was inside the car seated in the driver’s seat and yelling through the window. When the man got out of the car she said that she saw him come inside the café. She said that what she heard were swear words to the effect of “get in the eff-ing car. What the eff are you doing?” She said that at that stage she had gone into the café and was ordering a coffee.
Ms Griggs said that the lady’s belongings were still located inside the vehicle, her handbag and wallet. She said: “the gentleman was trying to get Nana inside the vehicle.” She said that at some time Nana went over to the vehicle to get her belongings and the man was trying to get her inside. She said that he was only trying to get her in verbally.
She then saw the man walk off and up the other side of the road. She saw Nana get into the driver’s side of the vehicle and went up and introduced herself. She said she could tell from her demeanour that she felt intimidated and embarrassed. She told the complainant “If you’d like to contact me and discuss things and if you need a friend at any time, please feel free to do so.” She also told her that she was terribly sorry that the complainant had experienced this. She said that the complainant told her that the man had been driving like an absolute maniac and that she was frightened for her life. Ms Griggs gave the complainant a piece of paper with her name and telephone number on it.
In cross-examination, the witness agreed that she did not say to the police that the man was yelling when he was inside the café. She said however that he “absolutely” did have a raised voice. The witness agreed that the complainant never contacted her.
The next witness called was Sally Mouskouri, the mother of the complainant. She confirmed that in 2022, she and her husband lived on their farm in [redacted]. She had first learned about her daughter being in a new relationship in late May or early June of 2022. She understood that her daughter and her partner had met in an online dating service and that she was living with him and his mother in Jannali. She first met her daughter and the accused together in person for the first time on 5 June 2022. On that occasion, she and her husband were visiting one of their other daughters and staying with her in Sydney. They met the accused and their daughter at the Glebe Hotel where they had a meal. She said it was a pleasant evening and just a normal dinner.
On about 10 June 2022, Mrs Mouskouri visited the apartment in Jannali. It had been Nana’s birthday the day before and they met up for her birthday. Mrs Mouskouri had stayed the night in a motel or hotel and the following morning went around to the apartment where they had some birthday cake. She met the accused’s mother. It was just a normal night and she and her husband then flew back to [redacted] and returned to their farm.
Mrs Mouskouri said that she and Nana regularly spoke on the phone at least once a week. For the first two weeks, things were okay. But she then started to sound pretty depressed and a little bit anxious. Mrs Mouskouri said that she sensed that her daughter was terribly uncomfortable in the relationship. In due course, her mother said to her to just come home.
In due course, the complainant came back to the farm. Mrs Mouskouri thought she was terribly distressed. The complainant said that her belongings had been thrown out of the unit and that she had already been to the police. It was perhaps uncertain from the evidence-in-chief whether that conversation was before or after she had gone to the farm. I should observe in passing that there was no evidence of the complainant having contacted police with any complaint about the accused prior to her attendance on 13 October 2022.
Mrs Mouskouri also had a phone call with the accused’s mother. She told her that she wanted all of Nana’s belongings as soon as possible and that otherwise she would come to get them personally. She said the outcome was that Nana ended up on the farm. Mrs Mouskouri’s recollection was that that was some time towards the end of July.
Mrs Mouskouri said that the conflict that was going on was said by her daughter to be because she found Jenny, the accused’s mother, very controlling over her and Demis, and that she just had to get out.
Mrs Mouskouri said that she told her daughter that the relationship shouldn’t have occurred in the first place.
Mrs Mouskouri was asked what her understand was and whether Nana’s belongings were returned to her, and she said yes, they were.
After her daughter had returned to the farm, Mrs Mouskouri and Nana went to [redacted] for several days to visit another daughter. She said after that, she went back to Sydney. Mrs Mouskouri said that her daughter had said that she felt she was in a very controlling relationship. However, she said that after Nana returned to Sydney, she recalled that they must have got back together again. She said that Nana and the accused came to visit at the farm in September. At that time, Mrs Mouskouri said she was somewhat confused about the relationship. She said they seemed to be okay, there was absolutely no drama whatsoever, and they had a few normal days on the farm. Mrs Mouskouri said she was shocked that Nana had gone back into the relationship.
She said that she did not know that there was any plan for them to get married until 10 days before the wedding. Prior to that, she had what she described as “very evasive” phone calls with her daughter, but that she sensed that there was something going on. She said that “eventually she told me about the fact that they were going to get married, and I was in a state of shock and I had to let it go because she’s a grown woman.”
Mrs Mouskouri attended the wedding and recalled a conversation with the accused’s mother where she told Jenny Roussos: “I don’t approve of this wedding. I don’t think it should be happening.” Mrs Mouskouri said that she was “dead against” the wedding and that it was a waste of money.
The next phone call she received from her daughter was after the wedding. Her daughter was extremely distressed and told her that Jenny was very overpowering, trying to dominate her and ruin the relationship. Nana wanted out of the marriage and said that she had been to the police. She thought that was 2 to 3 weeks after the wedding.
In the course of cross-examination, Mrs Mouskouri said that she was not aware that the complainant and the accused were trying to have a baby when they were together. She agreed that after the wedding, they had gone to Ashfield RSL where they had dinner with the accused, her daughter, Jenny Roussos, and also the grandmother. It was put to Mrs Mouskouri that during the time having dinner with Jenny, she had told Jenny that Nana had had mental health issues since she was about 10. Mrs Mouskouri disagreed that she had said those things.
Cross-examination focused to some extent on whether Mrs Mouskouri had been told that Nana’s belongings had been thrown out or been left outside. The effect of the responses from her was that it could have been either that was actually said.
The next witness called was Detective Senior Constable Stephanie Brown. Detective Brown was the Officer-in-Charge. She had been involved in taking the first statement from the complainant on 13 October 2022. She produced the recording of the triple-0 call, together with the transcript (Exhibit #12A and #12B). She also obtained CCTV footage from Woolworths at Jannali which was diagonally opposite Café Jolie. The video which showed the vehicle pulling up and the complainant getting out was tendered together with a map as Exhibit #18A and #18B. A number of still photographs were also tendered as Exhibit #18C.

In cross-examination, the Detective agreed that despite canvassing the area, no CCTV footage had been able to be obtained of the vehicle before it arrived at Jolie Café. Similarly, there were no reports or observations of the vehicle speeding. The Detective confirmed that the complainant had never complained about having sustained any physical injuries as a result of being driven in the vehicle with the accused. The first complaint to that effect had been in the statement obtained immediately before the trial commenced. That was also the first occasion on which she had said that the accused had told her to stop the car and to swap seats.
The Detective agreed that on the four occasions she had taken statements from the complainant, there had never been an allegation of financial abuse.
The next witness was Sabanath Thapa. Ms Thapa worked at Jolie Café. She also thought that the incident had occurred on a Saturday. She recalled the lady coming into the café and ordering a coffee. She recalled her friend, Sylvester, making the coffee but she said the lady just left suddenly. She said the coffee was ready and the person wasn’t there.
She said suddenly the lady was outside at the white car, asking for the car key. She said that “the lady was asking the key and phone with the man”. She said the man was in the car, sitting in the driver’s seat. She said the man said: “Let’s go home.” The lady came back inside and grabbed her coffee and her coat. She said the man came inside and was just asking her to go home. She said, “they were loud.” She thought the lady was crying. She said another lady brought a bottle of water to her and asked her what happened and gave her her phone number. She thought that the man passed the phone and key to the lady and then just walked up the road.
In cross-examination she was asked whether he was yelling or screaming and she replied “No. he didn’t swear anything. No. Nothing. Just said ‘let’s go home, lets go, let’s go home. Come on. Let’s go home.’ Like that. You know…”
The final witness in the Crown case was Dr Hana Sandrick. She had a consultation with the complainant on 21 September 2022. She had no recollection of the consultation other than what was recorded in her typed notes. Those notes were tendered as Exhibit #19.
Relevant entries included that the patient was described as being “very stressed out/panicky”. The notes recorded that the complainant had ongoing stress in her life but did not wish to be more specific. She said it was getting worse and she had difficulty sleeping as well as localised chest tightness. She felt dizzy with fast breathing, she had a similar episode a few months ago and an ambulance had been called. The notes recorded that she felt safe at home. Her past medical history was recorded as significant for anxiety and depression, and that she had previously been prescribed Zoloft and had previously had Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. The notes recorded that she did not wish to talk in more detail but stated that she feels safe and denied any abuse. She was prescribed Ativan.
That concluded the Crown case. The accused was then called.
It should be noted that he was not in custody having been granted bail some months after his initial charging.
He gave evidence that shortly after the complainant moved in they pretty much straight away had discussions about getting pregnant and also getting married. He said that at the end of June/early July, the relationship started to break down because Nana’s behaviour started becoming erratic. However, he said he caught COVID and Nana didn’t want to catch it because she had issues with the virus. She said she had had complications when she got the first injection. He said she just left and then moved back in after he had got over COVID.
According to the accused, at some stage while she was gone, he ascertained that she had gone to some fellow’s house at Blacktown, where she was ultimately defrauded of money by the man she had met on TikTok. However, she did come back after about a month.
He was shown various text messages between the two of them while she was in fact at the farm. However, after they got back together the accused said that Nana told him that she had spent a week at a motel in Blacktown to do with the TikTok money that she had lost. He accompanied her to Sutherland Police Station on about 21 August 2022 with respect to the alleged defrauding.
He was then taken to Exhibit #13 where he identified particular pages. These included a reference to attending the Kogarah Fertility Clinic at St George Private Hospital together with Nana on 15 August 2022 for the purpose of providing a sperm sample. He described Nana constantly complaining about his mother and the condition of the apartment. He said there were many occasions where they stayed at hotels in order to make Nana feel more comfortable in the relationship. He described her putting him down and amongst other things calling him “a fat fucking pig”, “lazy” and a “coward”.
The accused claimed to always say nice things such as “darling” and “honey” and “I love you”. He said he was always polite and kind and never swore at her.
During August 2022, the accused said that the complainant had told him that she had stayed at mental hospitals previously. She did not tell him any clear diagnosis of her mental health issues. He described her occasionally suffering from heavy breathing, and he was not sure whether it was from being stressed or from too many coffees.
On the morning of 2 October 2022, he said that her behaviour was erratic and that was why he suggested they go for a coffee. On a previous occasion, she had been erratic when they were on Georges River Road and she ran into the road. He said she was going to run into a car and he had to go and pull her out of the traffic. He had pursued her because he had previously been told by her father that she had been suicidal. That was the occasion on which she had run out of the house and on to the roadway.
They became engaged in September. He gave her his mother’s engagement ring, which was 18 carat gold with diamonds and a ruby in the middle. He said Nana wasn’t happy because it was old and there were a few stones missing. She complained about it to him. He was taken to some screenshots in the exhibit which included photos of rings which he was offering to buy to make her happy.
With respect to the attendance on the doctor for anxiety on 21 September 2022, he described sitting in the car and sending her a message indicating where he was parked outside. He said he did not go into the doctor’s surgery at all.
On the morning of 2 October 2022, he said that they had fruit and coffee for breakfast at home. He thought that they had had three coffees in total. Nana started breathing heavily and her face became red. He said he thought they should get some fresh air. He said they went and jumped into the car. He said when they got to the car, Nana jumped into the car first, she got into the passenger’s side seat and locked the car from the inside. She then opened the door and he got into the driver’s seat. He then identified the route set out in Exhibit #7 as the route to go around the block and down to the shops at Jannali. He said that Nana did not drive at any time that morning before they went to the shops.
He agreed that Nana said he was driving too fast but denied that he was exceeding the speed limit. He said he slowed right down. He said Nana was very, very upset and started becoming erratic. Contrary to the estimate by the complainant of 5 to 10 minutes at high speed, the accused estimated it only took about 2 minutes at normal speed to drive the short distance to the shops. He agreed that after they pulled up across the road from Woolworths, Nana got out of the car first, followed by the accused. He then returned to the car and moved the car. He only moved it a short distance.
He thought he yelled out to Nana: “Nana, what’s happening”. She was sitting in the far-left back corner of the shop. He said that he was calling out but he wasn’t fully screaming. When he went inside the café, he said she was hysterical. He said: “I knew about her mental health so it could have been something to do with her mental health issues.” He said he was concerned for her safety because her father had told him that she was suicidal. He agreed that he said words to the effect of: “Let’s go home and let’s talk.”
The accused said he was trying to get the complainant to come back home with him and calm her down. She asked for her phone and he said it was in the car and jumped in the car and had a look and it was in the back. He agreed that a man had come up and spoken to him about his manner of speaking and that he had told the man that she was not a stranger and they were planning to get married, and that her dad had told him that she was suicidal. He said the man had said “ok” and then had just left.
He agreed that Nana said she was not going to go with him, and he decided to leave and walk back. He thought he would let her go and she would come home after.
The accused was taken in his evidence to a message where he had complained about his foot. He had hurt his ankle and had told the complainant about it. The CCTV footage of him walking past Woolworths was replayed, and he identified that he was walking with a limp.
In the messages where she said that she also was hurting and that her back and neck hurt, he said she usually complained about how the bed hurt her back and neck. She had described it as a “cheap, shit bed.” He said that they had both bought the mattress topper for the bed.
He said they met up later that afternoon at his grandmother’s place. They had a normal dinner with his mother, his grandmother, his brother and his sister-in-law, and also Nana. They then drove to Ramsgate where they had a walk and spoke about his buying her a new ring. They then returned to the apartment where they both stayed together. He denied that Nana tried to leave at all that night, or that he had made her stay. He said he did not throw any of her belongings around the room and that he did not push her.
He was then taken through the text messages in Exhibit #3 from the following morning.
He identified various of the “happy” photographs leading up to the wedding. With respect to the black eye that he sustained, he said that they were sitting in bed in the morning of 4 October before going to the Shangri-La and she asked him “When are you going to buy me a new ring?” The accused said that he responded in a cheeky way, which he said he shouldn’t have, but then did ask: “When are you going to get pregnant?” He said that: “And then, she just whacked me one.” He agreed that he had the black eye in the photo taken the following day which was their wedding day.
The accused said when they returned home the day after the wedding, Nana was not happy that his mother was there. He said she thought they should have had the place to themselves. The accused was taken through the detail of the various text messages from 7 October. I do not propose to replicate the detail of his evidence in these reasons.
He agreed that at one stage his mother had told him that if he was not happy with the marriage, he should get an annulment. He said that Nana had overheard that conversation and became very upset. He said that occurred on the day that she left.
The accused gave evidence of having a phone call with Mrs Mouskouri and telling her that Nana was not doing too well and had gone into the city to stay. Mrs Mouskouri had said that they should never have got married and that Nana had mental health issues. The accused had said “No, she was just having her period.” He subsequently had phone discussions on the 13^th with the complainant in which he asked her to come home.
Later that day, he was arrested and charged in relation to the allegations that had been made that day by Nana.
In cross-examination, the accused disagreed that the relationship was volatile and had lots of ups and downs within a short period of time. He said there were a few difficulties but most were to do with the living issues. He agreed that living in the small apartment at Jannali with his mother was not conducive to a healthy relationship.
The accused described his mother not always being in the apartment but often being shopping or at her own mother’s place. He said that she had a car and a licence and was still able to drive. However, living in the same apartment he agreed, led to tensions between himself and the complainant.
It was put to him the reason they broke up the first time was because he was chatting to other women and he threw her out, including her belongings. The accused said that that was not true. He said that she freaked out when he caught COVID and she was the one who left. He said she packed her stuff up and left. He agreed that he had continued to send expressions of love and adoration for her after she had left. He agreed and said he still loved her.
The accused was asked about text message exchanges where he was asking for 50 bucks. He said that was during a period of time when he had broken down psychologically and was admitted to the Mental Health Unit at Royal North Shore Hospital. He said that he was there for 2 weeks in August and that Nana came and visited him twice while he was in hospital.
In cross-examination he disputed the account given by the complainant regarding finances and said that they shared the expenses. He said he was on a pension.
He was cross-examined about the occasion when she had heart palpitations and he had called the ambulance. He was also asked about the situation when she had tried to run into the traffic. He agreed that he was concerned for her and that her father had told him when she had missed a payment on one of her loans, she had gone to The Gap.
It was put to him that a conversation about her going to the private hospital for mental health had never occurred and that he had made up the statement from her that she had private health insurance. He said that he knew she had private health insurance because they purchased glasses for her at OPSM under private health insurance.
The balance of the cross-examination primarily consisted of the learned Crown Prosecutor putting each of the assertions by the complainant to the accused and him disagreeing with each of them. This included the manner of his driving at speed and also the alleged push in the back after he had allegedly thrown her belongings around the room.
At the conclusion of the evidence of the accused, the trial was required to be adjourned because of the circumstance that his mother, Jenny Roussos, had been hospitalised. Evidence was subsequently taken from her on 28 June 2024. A medical report regarding Mrs Roussos was tendered as Exhibit #21.
After Nana moved into their home, she said that Nana and Demis would go out all the time for dinners and lunches, and walks on the beach and to cafes. She said that both she and her mother helped to give Demis money to pay for such outings. They would each give him a couple of hundred dollars every fortnight.
She recalled them arguing in July 2022 before they broke up. According to Mrs Roussos, she heard Nana screaming at her son and swearing at him. She said she recalled her calling Demis a “fat C-U-N-T”. She heard many arguments from their bedroom.
Mrs Roussos said that by August and September, her demeanour had changed from when she first moved in. She had become very erratic. She used to scream sometimes and she used to cry. She said the complainant said that she was not happy and that she wanted to leave. She was aware that their plans were to get married and to have children, and that they would of course move out. On a few Saturdays they had gone to real estate agents and looked around at what was available.
She recalled that when they got engaged, she gave her son her own engagement ring, but that when he gave it to Nana, she said: “I don’t want that shit ring” and threw it in his face. Nana said it was “a piece of shit”.
Mrs Roussos said that on the day of the wedding, Nana’s mother said that they should not have got married. Mrs Roussos asked: “Why do you say that Sally?” She said that Mrs Mouskouri said that it was because Nana had health issues and mental issues since she was 10 years old. Mrs Mouskouri said: “She has to be on her own and she was married before… but that didn’t work out either.”
Mrs Roussos said that on the day before Nana ultimately left, she had had a conversation with Demis about an annulment.
With respect to the telephone calls while he was in gaol, she said that she connected Nana and Demis in those calls because Nana had requested it.
In cross-examination she agreed that her son was her carer. She was cross-examined about the extent of her being out as opposed to her being at home. She was also cross-examined about her failure to provide a statement to police.
Despite Mrs Roussos being in the witness box and being cross-examined for some period of time, there was little else of any relevance added to the mountain of evidence regarding the relationship between the accused and the complainant.

CROWN SUBMISSIONS

In her written submissions, counsel for the Crown identified the acts relied upon by the Crown to establish the two criminal charges.
The Crown alleges that the complainant was fearful for her physical safety when the accused drove at speed through the streets of Jannali, during which driving, the accused threatened to kill them both by crashing the car into a house. The manner of driving accompanied by the threat to crash the car and kill them both is said to constitute an act of intimidation. After the driving ceased and the vehicle was parked at the Jolie Café, the Crown alleges that the requests to the complainant by the accused to get back into the car and to go home, constituted part of a continuing course of conduct amounting to intimidation. The Crown invites the Court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of either of the temporally separate incidents and submits that the accused can be convicted on either or both bases.
Later on the same afternoon or evening, the complainant alleges that she decided to leave the accused and sought to pack her belongings. The Crown case is that during the course of her attempting to pack up and leave, the accused threw her belongings around and pushed her in the back with two hands. The case proceeded on that conduct being the basis for the charge of common assault which is before this Court pursuant to a Section 166 Certificate.
In the Crown’s submissions, the allegations did not sit in a vacuum. They were to be viewed against and informed by the background of the relationship between the complainant and the accused which, the Crown submitted, was dysfunctional and toxic. The Crown submitted that the main issues for the Court’s consideration were, firstly, the credibility of the complainant, and secondly, with respect to the intimidation charge, whether the Court could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended the complainant to fear physical or mental harm.
The Crown referred in some detail to aspects of the evidence supporting the description that they had advanced regarding the relationship. The Crown referred to aspects of the evidence that would lead the Court to accepting the description by the complainant of her feeling “manipulated” and “vulnerable”. The Crown submitted the circumstances and content of the phone call from gaol by the accused supported the complainant’s account.
The Crown submitted that the proposition that the complainant was suffering from ongoing mental health issues was not established on the evidence.
The Crown invited the Court to reject the evidence of the accused and his mother. The Crown directed the Court’s attention to the ambulance attendance and the consultation with Dr Sandrick.

The Crown set out the detail of the complainant’s evidence with respect to the charge of intimidation. In circumstances where the evidence has been summarised in detail by me earlier in this judgment, I do not repeat that aspect of the Crown’s submissions.
The Crown pointed to the evidence of Rochelle Griggs as corroborative evidence. The Crown also pointed to the detail of the text message exchange in Exhibit #3. The Crown also relied upon the evidence of the employees of the café and submits that it is supportive of the account by the complainant. The Crown set out the detail of Ms Griggs’ evidence.
In the Crown’s written submissions they expected the central element for the Court’s consideration to be whether or not the accused intended to intimidate the complainant. The Crown submitted that the accused’s account with respect to his verbal communications at the café would be rejected. The Crown submitted that the Court would not accept that the complainant had suffered an ominous mental health episode earlier that morning. The Crown submitted that a combination of all of the evidence would lead to satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to make the complainant fearful in order to get her to comply with his demands, realising at the very least the likelihood that his behaviour would have that effect on the complainant.
In the Crown’s submission, what took place at the Jolie Café amounted to an act of intimidation of the complainant. The Crown repeated its submission that the Court could reach a finding of guilt with respect to the offence of intimidation even in circumstances where the Court was not satisfied that either the intimidation in the car or, alternatively, the intimidation in the café occurred, as long as the Court was satisfied on the complainant’s evidence that one of those parts of the course of conduct had occurred.
The Crown’s written submissions concluded by anticipating a likely defence submission that the complainant leaving the apartment and staying at a hotel on the night of 12 October 2022, followed by the call to triple-0 and the subsequent police complaint on 13 October 2022, was triggered by anger after overhearing a conversation between the accused and his mother with respect to an annulment of the marriage. I note that the Crown’s written submissions refer to the complainant leaving on 11 October and the call to triple-0 and police complaint being on 12 October 2022. I have treated that as a typographical error.
The Crown submitted that the Court would accept the account by the complainant.

DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS

The Defence also advanced substantive submissions in writing. The 31 pages of close typing analysed, in detail, aspects of the evidence led at the trial. I do not propose to replicate that detail.
In the introduction to the written submissions, Ms Blake, counsel for the accused, submitted that there was an absence of corroborative support with respect to the alleged emotional and financial abuse throughout the relationship. It was submitted that there was clear dissatisfaction by the complainant at the inability of the accused to support her to the level of living standards that she expected. The dissatisfaction with the engagement ring and attendance on expensive hotels were pointed to as indicative of a level of expectation beyond the financial means of the accused.
The defence submitted that the Crown case rests substantially on the evidence of the complainant. The defence submitted that the Court should examine the complainant’s evidence very carefully to satisfy itself that it could safely act upon that evidence to the high standard required in a criminal trial. The defence submitted that there were limitations on the extent to which the evidence of Ms Griggs could properly be relied upon as corroboration.
The defence written submissions then analysed in detail the evidence regarding the morning of 2 October 2022, commencing with the evidence of the complainant before driving and then after they had begun to drive. The defence focused on the inability of the complainant to explain how she had the car keys after she alleged the accused had taken them.
With respect to her evidence of having first driven to the shops before returning, and being directed to swap the driving, the defence highlighted the disparity between the narrative of what had occurred in the complainant’s second statement where she had the accused driving the car out of the car park and her subsequent statement which was only provided on the Friday before the commencement of the trial, where she described herself driving and being ordered to stop driving and swap seats.
With respect to the manner of driving by the accused, the defence written submissions highlighted the difference between the description given in-chief and in the various police statements of the vehicle “feeling” like it was travelling in excess of 100 km/hour and the evidence volunteered in chief and in the course of cross-examination where the complainant alleged she had looked at the dashboard and had actually seen the speed.
In the course of that cross-examination, it was submitted that she reverted to a description of what the speed “felt like” when it was pointed out that she had never said in any of the police statements that she had looked at the dashboard.
The defence written submissions then analysed the evidence regarding the circumstances at Jolie Café from both the complainant and the various witnesses in considerable detail. In the defence submissions, the evidence of the workers in the café, Ms Thapa and Mr Huang, should be preferred to the more dramatic account provided by Ms Griggs.
The defence submissions then analysed the messages in Exhibit #3 and pointed to the responses of the accused to the suggestion that the complainant’s back and neck was hurt. It was submitted that the response clearly referred to ongoing complaints by the complainant about the bed in which they slept, rather than clearly being related to the manner of driving. The evidence given by the complainant of possibly having whiplash was said to have never been reported to the police or any doctor. The text messages from 7 October 2022 contained in Exhibit #10 were pointed to as consistently indicating ongoing complaints about pain from the bed.
The defence submissions then dealt with the allegation of common assault in the context of clothing having been thrown around that evening. The Crown case in this respect relied solely on the evidence of the complainant and was denied by the accused and his mother.
The defence submissions then analysed, again in considerable detail and by specific reference to the evidence, the circumstances of the ultimate complaint to police. The submissions highlighted the detail of the 100 pages of text messages in Exhibit #13 and ultimately the detail of text messages sent on 12 October 2022 after the complainant had left the apartment at Jannali. The defence pointed specifically to the communications in Exhibit #11 as being inconsistent with the description by the complainant of having “escaped domestic violence”.
The submissions also highlighted the detail of the 4 October phone call from gaol (Exhibit #14) in which all of the allegations from the complainant related to the circumstances of living with the accused’s mother and the accused having effectively taken the side of his mother in relation to their marriage. In the defence submission, there was no suggestion of physical or sexual assault in that call.
The defence submissions also analysed the material with respect to the mental health of the complainant and invited the Court to reach different conclusions from the Crown’s submission with respect to particularly the attendance upon Dr Sandrick.
The written submissions then analysed the detail of the evidence given by the accused himself. That analysis was itself some 12 pages of close typing. That observation is not meant to be critical of the detail provided to assist the Court. However, I do not repeat that level of detail in this judgment.
The defence submission was that the Court would ultimately come to the view that the accused was an honest and reliable witness and would accept his account. It was submitted that the complainant’s account was replete with inconsistencies and deficiencies and that she could not be found to be honest or accurate. In addition to the contended deficiencies in the Crown case, it was submitted that at the minimum, the Court could conclude that there was a reasonable possibility that the accused’s account was true and that accordingly, there should be verdicts of Not Guilty.

CONSIDERATION

The Court understands and accepts that the specific allegations brought against the accused “do not sit in a vacuum”. It is appropriate that they are viewed against and informed by the background of the relationship as was submitted by the Crown. However, as the Crown appropriately acknowledges, the details of what went on in the extensive relationship cannot overshadow or distract from the specific allegations which are relied upon, all of which are said to have occurred on 2 October 2022.
Two matters of concern were raised by the Court with the parties, albeit belatedly, in the consideration of the matters at trial. The first related to the proposition that the Court was entitled to consider either the episode of driving and the threats to kill as the act of intimidation, or alternatively, to reach a finding with respect to the act of intimidation by reference to the events at the Jolie Café. The question raised by the Court was whether or not the difference in those acts, both temporally and as to location, gave rise to a consideration of whether the charge was duplicitous.
This question was raised with the parties by email and they each responded with expedition. The defence position is that duplicity is apparent, not on the face of the information, but on the evidence which has been led.
The Crown’s position is that the conduct alleged is a course of conduct and that the temporal disconnection is insufficient to consider the actions as separate so as to give rise to, potentially, two separate charges.
In the event of the Court holding that duplicity is evident, the Crown elects to rely upon the events at the Jolie Café as the evidence of intimidation.
I am of the view that there is patent duplicity in the evidence led in support of the allegation.
In Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that a charge brought against a practising barrister for giving false evidence to the State Drug Crime Commission was duplicitous. The barrister had given answers to a number of questions in the course of giving evidence, which answers were particularised as being false in a variety of different ways. Gleeson CJ said (at 665 (NSWLR); 23 (A Crim R)):

“Although the information is not on its face duplicitous, it is obvious from the manner in which the case has been conducted on behalf of the prosecution that it is being alleged that the appellant gave a number of pieces of false evidence, on separate, although related, subjects on the occasion in question. It follows… that it is alleged that he committed a number of offences.”

Without descending into an analysis of the authorities with regard to duplicity, and whilst acknowledging that it is a question of form and degree, I am of the view that the evidence relied upon would be capable of giving rise to two separate allegations of intimidation. This conclusion is underscored by the Crown indicating that in the event of a determination that the offence alleged is duplicitous, then they elect to rely on the events at the Jolie Café. Clearly, if one were satisfied that the evidence of the manner of dangerous driving was accompanied by a verbal threat to crash the car and kill them both, if accepted beyond reasonable doubt, such an action would undoubtedly amount to an act of intimidation.
However, in the event that I am wrong with respect to the question of duplicity, I propose to consider each of the allegations upon which the Crown seeks to rely.
Before turning to the specificity of the allegation, it is appropriate to make some observations and findings with respect to the relationship. The length and breadth of the evidence which was led undoubtedly had its original basis in the far more serious allegations which were the subject of the matters being committed for trial and originally included in the trial to which I was allocated. The evidence led in the more limited trial which then proceeded extended through the considerable detail of the original forming of the relationship, the circumstances of three adults sharing a small apartment and what might colloquially be described as the emotional “ups and downs” of the extended relationship as revealed through both oral testimony and in the detail of the multiplicity of text messages which were tendered.
The complainant presented as emotionally labile and to some degree, prone to exaggeration. She described circumstances which might be perceived to fall under a description of coercive control but other than an assertion that he would “usually” push her around and that he pushed her with his hands on her back on the evening of 2 October 2022, the asserted control did not appear to be accompanied by any acts of violence. The circumstances and the originally raised allegations of sexual assault formed no part of the evidence in the present trial.
The ability of the complainant to leave the relationship was demonstrated by her having physically left after approximately 3 weeks and having spent a period of time of perhaps a month back at her parents’ farm. Her visits to the accused while he was in hospital, which proposition was not challenged, and her subsequent decision to move back into the apartment, were acts which were implicitly voluntary. Her ultimate departure and staying at a not inexpensive hotel was also a decision which she made independently.
There was some disparity in the evidence proffered by the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other as to who provided the finances for various activities undertaken during the relationship. The assertion by the complainant that she, in effect, paid for everything, including the cost of the wedding, was not independently corroborated by the production of any financial records, credit card statements or otherwise.
On the other hand, the assertion by the accused that he received sums of money from his mother and that they paid essentially half and half was supported to some degree by unchallenged evidence led from Mrs Roussos. There were also communications regarding a request for further money to be paid into a card on the occasion that the complainant was using the debit or credit card provided to her by the accused and there were insufficient funds for the card to be able to be utilised. Similarly, there was no evidence adduced, from either side, as to the payments for the Shangri-La Hotel, or for that matter, the Palazzo Versace at the Gold Coast.
Whilst unable to reach a firm conclusion, I should clearly indicate that I entertain some reservation about the complainant’s account of having paid for everything. Many matters would have been capable of easy corroboration were that to be the fact.
The variability in emotion and attitude to the relationship is exemplified by the proposition that the complainant, on her account, was threatening to leave and indeed endeavoured to do so on the evening of 2 October 2022, yet was involved in shopping for matters to do with the wedding including hair and presumably nails and make up, and the obtaining of other items in the immediately following 2 days before their nuptials at the Greek Orthodox Church and the 2 nights in the Shangri-La Hotel.
It is clear that likely expectations of domicile together without the pervading presence of the accused’s mother were rudely shattered in the days following the wedding.
The volatility of the relationship might further be exemplified by the black eye sustained by the accused consequent upon his bride-to-be “touching him”, according to her evidence, on the eve of the wedding. The accused’s account of the circumstances in which he sustained the black eye was that on the morning before the wedding, namely 4 October 2022, while they were still in bed at the apartment there had been an exchange between them in which he had responded to a query by her as to when he was going to buy her a new engagement ring that he responded provocatively and inappropriately: “When are you going to get pregnant?” His account was that she hit him as a consequence of that distasteful comment.
The account given by the complainant was that he was forcing himself onto her, implicitly in a sexual fashion. Whilst the original allegations are otherwise not relevant to a consideration of the issues at trial, it is appropriate to observe that there was no allegation of a sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault on 4 October 2022 in the original half dozen allegations in that respect made to police.
A further issue raised for consideration in the overall context of the relationship is the issue of mental health. The complainant denied any past issues with her mental health. Leaving to one side the descriptive evidence in this respect by the accused himself, the objective evidence indicates what was described as a panic attack including palpitations of the heart of sufficient severity as to require the attendance of an ambulance on one occasion. No documentary evidence was produced in respect of this attendance by the ambulance, although the fact of it was not in dispute. It would appear that the complainant was cleared of any cardiac complications by the paramedics on site. There is no evidence of any medication or symptomatic relief being prescribed or administered.
Independent evidence was led from Dr Sandrick regarding a consultation on 21 September 2022. That was reflective of a panic attack and anxiety disorder of sufficient severity that the symptoms were determined to be treated by the benzodiazepine, Ativan. This was not the doctor’s normal approach, but was indicated by the severity of the symptoms with which the complainant presented.
The doctor, who was experienced in matters of domestic violence, asked specific questions which led to notations that she “feels safe at home” and: “states she feels safe, denies any abuse.”
A question mark as to whether there was a problem with either a parent or a partner was left undetermined by the doctor’s own interpretation of her abbreviation in the notes. In the Crown’s submission, the Court would conclude it referred to partner, while in the defence submission the ongoing problems with the parent of the accused, namely his mother, was pointed to as the more probable explanation. In light of the answers provided by the doctor, the Court is unable to prefer one version or the other as more likely.
Of some significance was the past history provided of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and the prescribing of the anti-depressant, Zoloft. These are factors which are not inconsistent with the account provided by the accused and, to some degree, by his mother.
The accused also gave evidence of conversations with the complainant’s father in which he had been told about her past issues with mental health, including the detail of a claimed suicide attempt. No evidence was called from Mr Mouskouri with respect to those assertions. They remained unchallenged.
As I observed in my summary of the evidence, the complainant persisted in references to sexual abuse notwithstanding the withdrawal of all charges of such a type. She was reluctant to acknowledge any feelings or emotion towards the accused which were consistent with her decisions to have moved in with him and to get married. On the contrary, she painted with a broad brush an image of constant abuse and manipulation. In my view, she was prone to exaggeration.

At the outset of her evidence, she said that he was violent, abused her and sexually assaulted her. She said he was controlling by not allowing her to do anything by herself. It is appropriate to observe that the multiplicity of text messages between them clearly indicate that there were many, many occasions when they were physically apart and undertaking separate activities. Nowhere in the multiplicity of text messages which have been tendered, were there examples of abusive or threatening comments from the accused to the complainant. I do not propose to set out specific examples but the messages are replete with expressions of love and adoration, all of which are now categorised by the complainant as being controlling and manipulative.
Against that background, I turn to consider the specificity of the allegations.
The account given by the complainant with respect to what I will describe as the manner of driving allegation, commenced with her having driven to the shops first, and then, unable to determine where or what to eat, having turned the car around and driven back to near the apartment. The accused’s account denied that the complainant drove at all, or that there was any demand to swap seats.
Particularly in light of the narrative in the complainant’s statement, made within weeks of the event, in which she described the accused having driven out of the car park in her car after plugging the phone charger in, I have considerable reservation with respect to the account now given by the complainant. The description of the first driving being undertaken by her, and then a demand to stop the car and swap seats, has the hallmarks of recent invention.
The intimidation relied upon is that the accused was speeding, assertedly at speeds above 100 km/hour, accompanied by threats to intentionally crash the car and to kill both of them. The Crown relies upon the demeanour of the complainant in the Jolie Café as being consistent with these allegations. That is a legitimate matter for consideration. Conversely, the demeanour and conduct of the accused may be viewed as not necessarily consistent with someone who was deliberately intimidating his partner and threatening to kill her minutes before.
The complainant gave unsatisfactory evidence with respect to her belief that the car was exceeding 100 km/hour. The proposition that she was able to see the speedometer was inconsistent with the portions of her statements to police. She resiled from it when confronted with the absence of such an assertion in the police statements. It was, in my view, an example of “padding” or exaggerating the evidence to make it more believable. Whether she was anxious as a consequence of a general state of anxiety and/or the manner of driving, absent satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of the threat to kill both of them, I would entertain a degree of reservation about the driving constituting an act of intimidation.
I have given consideration to the nature of the complaint attributed to the complainant by Ms Griggs. While it is supportive of the complainant having been anxious and distressed about the manner of driving and her apprehension, it, significantly, did not include an allegation or complaint that he had threatened to crash the car and kill them both.
In light of the view which I have reached regarding the complainant’s propensity for exaggeration, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that such a threat was made. If the Crown’s submission regarding a course of conduct were viewed as correct, rather than the conclusion I have reached on duplicity, I would not be satisfied that the manner of driving before arriving at Jolie Café amounted to an act of intimidation.
The circumstances at the Jolie Café are the subject of evidence from five separate people. The complainant described having gone into the café and ordering a coffee and taking a seat. She said that the accused came into the café and told her to get back in the car. She told him that she wanted her car keys back and wanted her phone. She described an older male telling him not to speak to a woman like that and then described the lady Rochelle Griggs. She repeated the proposition that the accused said that he could speak to his wife any way he wanted whilst in the café. She described the barista asking if she had anywhere else to go and telling her not to go with the accused because it was not safe. She described him standing over her saying “Get back in the car” while holding her mobile phone and her car keys.
After describing what had happened inside the café including the approach of the man in his 60s, she said the accused got back in her car in the driver’s seat with her phone and her car keys, waiting for her to get back in the car. She subsequently said that the man in his 60s had approached the passenger’s side of the vehicle when he spoke to the accused.
Ms Rochelle Griggs gave evidence of having heard yelling from a distance of 100 to 150 metres away. Accepting that she was describing having been at the intersection near the railway station, the distance was perhaps more likely to have been approximately 50 metres from the front of the café. She implicitly described yelling continuing until she got up to the café and went into it. She described the accused initially being inside the vehicle and yelling out to the complainant who was inside the café. Ms Griggs described a man saying something to the accused inside the vehicle. This was presumably the person described as the older man in his 60s. Ms Griggs recollection was that that was before the accused got out of his vehicle and went into the café.
With respect to the yelling, Ms Griggs described expletives and gave a specific account of swearing: “Get in the effing car, what the eff are you doing.” Ms Griggs herself ordered a coffee and she described the accused verbally trying to get the complainant to get into the car. She saw her go back to the car to retrieve her possessions and then saw the accused walk away. She had a discussion with the complainant and provided her telephone contact details if she needed a friend or to talk. Ms Griggs said that the complainant had mentioned that the man had been driving “like an absolute maniac” and she was frightened for her life.
Two of the workers from the café also gave evidence. The proprietor of the café, Mr Huang, described having heard the accused say: “let’s go home and talk” and the complainant repeating: “just give me back the key”. He described the volume of the man’s voice as “just normal”. He said that the man was not screaming and he gave no evidence of loud yelling from the car and certainly no yelling which would have been able to be heard 50 metres away.
Evidence was also called from Ms Sabanath Thapa who was similarly working inside the café. She similarly recalled the man saying: “let’s go home” and the lady asking for her key and her phone. She said: “they were loud, you know.” Ms Thapa recalled the lady standing outside the car asking for her phone and key. She agreed that the man was not yelling or screaming, she said: “No, he didn’t swear anything. No. Nothing. Just said: ‘Let’s go home. Let’s go home. Let’s go. Come on.’ Like that.”
I am satisfied that whatever the initial cause, the complainant was upset and perchance crying when she was in the café. I have no doubt that the accused was asking her to come back to the car and to go home. I prefer the account given by the independent witnesses who were working in the café to the more dramatic account provided in the evidence by Ms Rochelle Griggs. She alone provided colourful expletives to the language from the accused. The proposition that the accused was screaming so loud towards the complainant while he was still in the car such that Ms Griggs was hearing it at the not inconsiderable distance between the car and the end of the street suggests a degree of hyperbole.
Whilst there was clearly a disagreement between the accused and the complainant, about whether she should go back in the car with him and repeated requests by him that she leave and go in the car and go back home, there were no threats of physical harm and the circumstances which ensued later that day, with afternoon tea at the grandmother’s and walks along the beach, and the ensuing days culminating in their wedding, leave me with considerable reservation as to whether the interaction constituted an act of intimidation, or, indeed, whether the complainant perceived it as such at the time. The broad thrust of the evidence from the accused was substantially corroborated by the workers from the café. I am not satisfied that what took place at Jolie Café constituted an act of intimidation.
There will accordingly be a verdict of Not Guilty to the single count in the indictment.
The common assault which is before this Court pursuant to a section 166 certificate and requires me to exercise the jurisdiction of a magistrate has been conducted on the basis of an alleged push in the back in the course of the complainant endeavouring to pack to leave the apartment on 2 October 2022.
An examination of the Court Attendance Notice clearly states that the alleged common assault occurred during the morning of 7 October and not in the late afternoon or early evening of 2 October 2022. Such disparity between the evidence relied upon and the Court Attendance Notice was not the subject of any submission or attention by either party during the course of the extended hearing.
The disparity became evident when the Court looked at the Court Attendance Notice itself in the course of preparing this judgment. Having raised it with both parties by email, the defence response acknowledges the difference between the evidence and the Court Attendance Notice, and submits that an amendment at such a late stage in the proceeding ought not to be permitted.
The Crown on the other hand submits that the original Police Facts, the Charge Certificate and a severance application brought by the defence all indicated that sequence 2 in the original charges related to a common assault said to have occurred on 2 October 2022.
The original Police Facts describing sequence 2 actually advert to the push in the back on 2 October but also to factual circumstances attending an allegation of sexual intercourse without consent on the morning of 7 October 2022. The particularisation in the Court Attendance Notice of an event during the morning hours of 7 October 2022 indicate to me that the original charging police were focused on the physical act preceding the alleged fellatio, which itself was the subject of a separate charge.
However, it is clear that those same facts describe the push on 2 October as does the Charge Certificate. The defence were clearly of the understanding that the allegation related to the push on 2 October and not to some forcible assault on the head or neck of the complainant preceding a sexual assault. Notwithstanding a degree of disquiet, given the manner in which the trial was conducted, I am of the view that leave should be granted to the Crown to amend the allegation both as to time and date, and I will deal with the evidence accordingly.
The evidence with respect to the events of the evening of 2 October 2022 supporting the allegation relies exclusively on the account of the complainant.
Very little detail was provided by her other than her assertion that she had decided to leave and went to pack her belongings. Implicitly, in an effort to make that task more difficult for her, the accused allegedly threw her belongings around the room. At some stage in the course of whatever interaction was occurring, she described him shoving her in the back with two hands, an action she described as something he did “usually”.
The accused denied that the complainant had threatened to leave that night, or that she had endeavoured to pack. He denied throwing her belongings around and denied pushing her in the back. The objective circumstance is that the complainant did stay that night and over the following two days, was involved in preparations for their wedding on the Wednesday.
The proposition that he had threatened to kill them both and then physically assaulted her in circumstances of aggression and disagreement, and that she was intending to leave the apartment and end the relationship on 2 October 2022, is difficult to reconcile with the wedding preparations during the ensuing 2 days and the happy wedding photos from less than 72 hours later.
I am left with a degree of uncertainty as to whether what is alleged did take place and in such circumstances there will be a verdict of Not Guilty with respect to the allegation of common assault.

**********

Amendments

03 March 2025 - Amended on 3 March 2025 to include "(No 1)" in the citation.

Decision last updated: 03 March 2025

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Roussos (a pseudonym) (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 498
Hearing dates:	20, 21, 22, 25, 26 March 2024, 5 April 2024 and 28 June 2024.
Date of orders:	25 September 2024
Decision date:	25 September 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Not Guilty of intimidation and Not Guilty of common assault (related offence).
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge-alone — Reasons of trial judge — One count of intimidation and related offence of common assault — Previous serious sexual assault charges dropped on day 1 of the trial — Matter remained in District Court — Duplicity of charges — Multiple inconsistencies between complainant and accused — Volatile and toxic relationship — Not Guilty verdict.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	AK v Western Australia (2008) HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Demis Roussos (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: K Buck (Crown) H Blake (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mitchell & Co. Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2022/00306115
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of evidence that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant in accordance with section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900.