Bold claim about evidence in O’Keefe DV case

A lawyer representing Andrew O’Keefe has told a court a woman’s evidence of a “frightening and degrading” attack by the embattled former TV personality was “highly controversial”.

The former Deal or No Deal host appeared before Downing Centre District Court on Wednesday afternoon as he appeals his convictions over a string of domestic violence and drug charges.

The 52-year-old was found guilty and sentenced to a 12-month and three 18-month community corrections orders in January by magistrate Lisa Viney, who also imposed fines on the former TV star.

Barrister Phillip Boulton SC told the court Ms Viney should have had “reasonable doubt” that O’Keefe had committed the offences, and had given broad weight to “tendency evidence”.

“Your honor will have gathered from the evidence that not only was there a hot dispute about who did what and said what where and when during the evening of September 8, but there was a similar factual dispute about the incident on January 30,” he told Judge John Pickering, who appeared from Lismore.

Mr Bolton said there were “competing versions” about the earlier event during which O’Keefe allegedly spat on his partner, and that they should have affected how the facts were assessed.

He said O’Keefe had given evidence it was the woman who had acted aggressively, including allegedly swinging a laptop at him, and that it could “put a completely different light” on what she said.

Much of the first hour of the hearing focused on what weight Ms Viney may have given to how evidence about the alleged January event may have evidenced some “tendency”.

Mr Bolton told Justice Pickering that Ms Viney had “failed to be specific in relevant evidence” and that the events described by the woman were “much more murky” than described.

“There is nothing inherently improbable or unlikely in Mr O’Keefe’s evidence about either incident. Indeed, his evidence in relation to the January 30 incident involved a number of concessions which were quite damaging to the ultimate disposition of the case against him,” Mr Bolton told the court.

“Rather, the magistrate reached the conclusion, it would seem, on an impressionistic basis, where essentially she determined she favored the complainant’s evidence over Mr O’Keefe’s and that was sufficient to determine the outcome”.

The court was told last year an argument broke out between the former White Ribbon ambassador and the woman with whom he was staying with after he insulted her child.

O’Keefe proceeded to push the woman against a doorway, injuring her wrist and hand, after she asked him to leave before kicking her and forcing her to fall.

In sentencing, Ms Viney said O’Keefe – who claimed the woman’s injuries were self-inflicted – was “violent and degrading” and tried to “downplay his own actions”.

Arguing against the appeal, the representative for the Crown prosecutor told the court the victim had been consistent in her evidence about her injuries, even if she had made “omissions” to some people.

“In summary, yes the magistrate’s reasons were brief. This is, despite the surrounding circumstances of the matter, a very common matter that comes before the local court,” he said.

“Your honor will find the complainant’s evidence is truthful, accurate, and reliable, and that the events are proven and should be upheld.”

Vowing at the time to appeal the sentences, O’Keefe’s return to court comes after he was charged on Sunday with contravening an AVO and one count of intimidation.

O’Keefe, who also hosted Weekend Sunrise, was found guilty following a three-day hearing of domestic violence-related assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

He was also found guilty of two counts of possessing a prohibited drug and contravening an apprehended violence order, one of which he pleaded guilty to previously.

O’Keefe will return to court on September 9 for judgement.