The lady’s fiance agreed underneath cross-examination that the couple had a tough week, and it was the “lowest level” of their relationship, however disagreed that it had been “make or break”.
Cunneen submitted that folks akin to the girl’s household, who have been instructed in regards to the alleged assault, wouldn’t “cross-examine” or query their liked one, somewhat would “simply settle for it”.
“However, girls and gents, you aren’t in that place. You aren’t right here as kin or mates … you might be judges,” the barrister stated.
The lady instructed her sister, in a textual content message, that Beale had adopted her “INTO THE BATHROOM” and instructed her future mother-in-law that he adopted her into the “girls bathrooms”.
“She was determined,” Cunneen stated. “She needed to get the connection again on observe.”
Cunneen stated “thank goodness” for the CCTV, which exhibits Beale getting into the boys’s loos earlier than the girl.
“If it was the previous days, what would we’ve got? We might most likely have set in stone … the false account that he adopted her into the bathrooms,” she stated.
Cunneen stated the CCTV additionally captured the “flavour of the night time”, together with the girl touching Beale when he got here to speak to her and her fiance within the bar after being within the lavatory.
She additionally addressed a cellphone name between Beale and the girl about one month after the incident, recorded by police, throughout which the rugby union star is confronted with the allegations and is heard repeatedly apologising.
“Not anyplace in that decision does he concede or agree that on the night time he thought she wasn’t consenting,” Cunneen stated. “As he says, ‘I assumed it was on’.”
She stated the girl had been in a position to “powerfully recommend a state of affairs to Mr Beale” within the name.
Earlier on Thursday, Crown prosecutor Jeff Tunks stated Beale had responded to the girl’s accusations within the name “with out searching for clarification” and made “direct admissions to particular acts”.
He stated the jury might imagine Beale sounded “contrite” and “conscious of the gravity of the scenario”.
The prosecutor stated it was for the jury to contemplate whether or not Beale had a responsible conscience.
In her tackle, Cunneen stated, “in fact there’s a responsible conscience”.
“His spouse is aware of what’s occurring within the phone name. Should you’re in search of a responsible conscience, in fact you’ll discover it,” she stated.
“A responsible conscience about one thing accomplished that’s not perfect in marriage is nothing to do with a responsible thoughts for a severe felony offence.”
In his tackle, Tunks recounted the girl’s proof about what she says occurred within the cubicle with Beale.
The complainant stated the door was ajar and Beale got here in, locked it, pulled her head and compelled himself on her. She stated Beale stated “come on” and she or he stood up and “stated ‘no’ a bit louder this time”.
The prosecutor stated: “She stated ‘no’, you may assume, on a number of events.”
Tunks stated, if the jury accepts the girl was sexually assaulted, the incident might have affected her “that night time, the following day, the best way that she acted”.
“Undesirable or illegal sexual contact might have an effect on folks in numerous methods,” he stated.
The trial continues earlier than Decide Graham Turnbull in Sydney’s Downing Centre District Court docket.