It began with a text message from a well-connected Melbourne man. “You free this arvo for a meeting,” he asked his former personal assistant on 23 March 2023.She was. She soon found herself in his luxurious house, with its grand piano, wine cellar and sauna. She signed his guestbook, with a picture of a smiling face.Less than 12 hours later, police were at the front door.It was the start of a series of events that led to a three-week rape trial in the Victorian county court and another debate about the use of suppression orders in the state.On Tuesday, the man – who cannot be named due to an ongoing suppression order – was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.His lawyer, Dermot Dann KC, argued there had been no sexual contact between the two that night.But according to the prosecution, the man tried to kiss his former personal assistant and allegedly sexually assaulted her, before raping her twice.The trial ultimately came down to the credibility of the alleged victim, who gave evidence over more than four days before a closed court. The accused did not take the stand.Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email Prosecutor Matthew Fisher argued to the jury in his closing address that the inconsistencies in her account proved her credibility, as it showed she had not made it up. To be perfect would have shown her story to be a lie.Dann counter-argued that this was a “desperate submission”, saying the prosecution had asked the jury to swallow a “horrible mixture of lies, fabrications, inconsistencies, [and] evidence that has been shown to be demonstrably untrue”.Evidence ruled inadmissibleThere was other evidence gathered during the police investigation which the jury did not hear, after being ruled inadmissible by the judge. The reasons for the judge’s decision were not provided to the media.There was DNA evidence that the prosecution sought to include, that was ruled inadmissible. The woman he was found guilty of raping used an early evidence kit, with instructions given by police on how she should collect samples.The results indicated a mixed DNA sample with two contributors: the major contributor likely to be the complainant, the minor contributor with “limited profile information” that was not matched to the man, but for which he could also not be excluded.Dann had argued that allowing the jury to hear evidence which was inconclusive would be unfair to his client.During a pre-trial hearing in December, he said the evidence could confuse a jury, and that it was impossible to determine the reliability of the test because it had been self-administered by the complainant.The prosecution had argued the jury would be able to comprehend the complexity of the DNA evidence, and that it had probative value in establishing possible contact between the man and the woman.The evidence, which included a six-page report released to the media as part of the accused’s committal hearing, was ultimately ruled inadmissible by judge Frank Gucciardo.Identity remains a secretWhile rulings on admissibility are common before any trial, the man also fought several less routine court battles to maintain a suppression order, first made in 2023, preventing the publication of any material about the case.The order was made because it was “necessary to protect the safety of any person”.That person was the accused.The material he relied upon came from psychiatrist Dr Jacqueline Rakov – who also provided evidence to support the suppression order granted to Tom Silvagni in his county court rape case in 2025. That order prompted a push for government reform, particularly in relation to suppressions based on mental health grounds.In this matter, Rakov told the court in 2024 that the accused had a number of inpatient admissions related to the mental distress caused by being charged, and the prospect of him being identified in the media. He had previously attempted suicide, she said, though these attempts were reported by him and not directly linked to the charges.She said he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, and had a low mood, a loss of interest in previous enjoyable activities, poor concentration and low self-confidence.Rakov said the man was largely staying at home, not going to work or socialising, and panicked about being outside.His distress also increased after media coverage of an earlier court appearance, which led to him being identified by members of the public, she said.“They clearly bend the rules to sell their papers,” Rakov said.“He’s said, ‘If I’m guilty, put it on the front page.’”She said that even though his identity had been suppressed he was not “flourishing” and “that’s before the vultures in the media have had a chance to descend in any substantive way”.Dann argued that media coverage was “a significant trigger factor” that “could push him over the edge” into self-harm.The order was amended in late 2024 to allow reporting on the case – so long as it did not reveal the man’s identity.Before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Gucciardo told its members they should not be prejudiced against the man for the type of work that he did. Nor should they be prejudiced against the woman because of how she may have presented during her evidence, or for her admissions regarding cocaine use.The trial had been punctuated by ill-will between the defence and the prosecution, and had in fact been nasty for months, with earlier evidence including that the woman had called Dann “Dermot Dickhead” in emails to the police officer in charge of the case.But both sides agreed she was the key to the case: that the jury either believed her account of what happened to her in the hours after she signed the guestbook in the accused’s house, or they didn’t.They decided they did believe her. The man, who had been on bail during the trial, was taken into custody and will be sentenced at a later date.