D-Day for convicted rapist Jarryd Hayne

Disgraced NRL star Jarryd Hayne will learn his fate after arguing his conviction should be quashed because of critical Facebook messages from a woman he was found guilty of raping.

The two-time Dally M winner was found guilty of sexually assaulting the woman at her Newcastle home in the NSW Hunter Region following the high profile trial in the District Court last year.

Hayne, 36, has continued to maintain his innocence and quickly launched an appeal against his conviction. It was the third time Hayne had faced a trial over the same incident and the second time he was found guilty.

The former Parramatta Eels fullback claims the sexual encounter was entirely consensual, but the jury accepted the woman’s version of events that she repeatedly said “no” and “stop” and was left bleeding after he pulled her pants off.

Hayne took his appeal to the state’s highest court in April, with the court informing the former NRL star the decision is to be handed down at 10.15am Wednesday.

During the appeal in April, his lawyers argued that messages the woman he was found guilty of raping had deleted from her phone could be the key to acquitting the former star.

Tim Game SC, representing Hayne, told the court his client should be acquitted rather than face a fourth trial.

He argued the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, concealed text and social media messages which showed she was consenting.

The messages relate to a Snapchat conversation she had with a friend, whom she had never met in person.

The complainant messaged the friend before and after meeting Hayne, where she told her about the sexual encounter but did not say it was non-consensual.

Mr Game argued concealment was “the same as lying or deception”, saying the woman hid evidence on “a large scale”.

He told the court concealment was “front and centre” of the defence case but a miscarriage of justice arose when Judge Graham Turnbull SC, the District Court judge, ruled the defence could not cross-examine the witness on her deleted or undisclosed messages with a man and woman before and after the incident.

Hayne’s lawyers sought to rely on the messages to suggest the victim “deliberately concealed her communications because … they did not support her version of what occurred and then (possibly) tried to influence in respect of her evidence”.

The court was told the woman had listened to Hayne’s prior appeal in 2021 and contacted the social media friend on Facebook the same day.

“I hope this was worth it for you,” the message read.

“The pain I have endured from all of this is unfathomable. I have never lied. I have never done anything to you and for you to write something to JH about me having him over does not excuse what happened.

“I did not tell you because it was disgusting and confusing for me. If he gets out you can thank yourself. This has been the hardest most painful thing I’ve ever been through and you can thank yourself for helping a guilty person.”

Hayne’s lawyers argue the messages were relevant to the complainant’s credibility, demonstrating her contacting a witness in a “hostile manner”.

They argued the woman “potentially” had a view to influencing the witness account.

Mr Game, during the appeal, said the concealment showed she wanted to get rid of evidence which was “hurtful” but also because it showed she was “actually consenting”.

He told the court: “It’s evidence of dishonesty, it also goes to her credibility in a general sense.”

But Crown prosecutor Georgina Wright SC told the court the complainant did not tell the woman about the assault because they were not known well to each other.

“She had never met her and said she did not know her at all well,” Ms Wright said.

Ms Wright told the court the complainant had told close friends and family of the assault in the hours after the incident.

But she argued the Facebook message to the social media friend was “consistent with an expression of frustration with the legal process”, denying claims the complainant was concealing messages from police.

Hayne’s appeal relies on three grounds – the first being the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial, secondly, the trial judge erred in ruling the complainant did not have to give evidence about a 2021 interaction with the man she messaged the same day the jury found she was sexually assaulted in 2018, and lastly, that the judge’s ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Hayne was sentenced to four years and nine months behind bars for the charges of digital and oral sexual assault, but he will be eligible for parole in May 2025 due to time already served in custody.

Judgment in the appeal will be delivered later on Wednesday.