Former NRL star Curtis Scott has launched an appeal after he was found guilty of a series of terrifying attacks on his ex-partner during which he threatened to kill her.
The former Melbourne Storm and Canberra Raiders player was last year convicted of multiple charges and sentenced to a 12-month community corrections order.
The 25-year-old was found guilty after a hearing of three charges, including assault occasioning bodily harm, relating to attacks on his former partner Tay-Leiha Clark.
In giving his judgment, Magistrate Daniel Covington ruled the former NRL star had assaulted Ms Clark during an altercation at her parents’ home in Sylvania.
The assault caused injuries to Ms Clark’s head, forearm and wrist.
He also found that during a holiday at Lake Conjola on the NSW south coast, Scott charged into Ms Clark, knocking her to the ground.
Scott was also found guilty of a further verbal altercation during which Scott threatened to kill Ms Clark and himself. The court previously heard Scott afterwards deliberately drove his car into a tree.
Scott was found not guilty of other allegations, including that he choked Ms Clark during an argument on the night of the 2018 NRL grand final.
During an appeal hearing at Sydney Downing Centre District Court on Monday, Scott’s lawyer Slade Howell tried to cast doubt on evidence given by Ms Clark about the allegations.
Mr Howell told the court Ms Clark had not alleged Scott had been violent in her first statement to police, which he submitted was contradicted in later statements to officers and evidence given in court.
Ms Clark claimed that despite telling the court she had carefully read the statement – which the court heard was aimed at securing an AVO, allegations of violence were largely missing.
Ms Clark told the court during the original hearing that the allegations were absent despite her telling the officer involved in the interview – claims Mr Howell disputed.
Of particular focus on Monday was a violent incident at Ms Clark’s parents Sylvania home during which she allegedly received in juries to her knuckles, elbow and forearm.
Mr Howell showed Judge Alister Abadee two images tendered during the trial allegedly taken from Ms Clark’s Instagram account in the days and weeks after the alleged incident.
He claimed the images did not show any injuries as described by Ms Clark, though one image was determined in the trial to have actually been taken before the incident.
In response, Justice Abadee said it was possible – although not discussed during the original hearing – that the images had potentially been digitally altered before being posted.
“Is it possible the photos might have been airbrushed before going to Instagram,” he said.
“People on Instagram are trying to portray a glamorous existence.
“They wouldn’t want to show (a photo) with cuts or bruises, especially while wearing an athletic top.
“It wouldn’t be consistent with what one is trying to portray.”
In response, Mr Howell said Ms Clark had not made any claims to that effect during cross-examination.
The court was also told it was possible the injuries had healed before the photo was taken.
Similarly, Justice Abadee questioned submissions made by Mr Howell that Ms Clark had not disclosed abuse in an interview with a representative of the NRL’s ethic’s committee, Karen Murphy.
Ms Murphy previously testified she was not told of allegations of physical abuse or strangling.
Ms Clark stated in the original court hearing she had disclosed the alleged abuse.
“Is it possible whether the complainant felt free to explain everything that happened,” Justice Abadee said.
“Maybe Ms Clark could have been somewhat reticent in talking to the NRL ethics committee.”
During the hearing, Mr Howell also called into question the recollection of Ms Clark’s mother, father and cousin, after an earlier version of police documents included the wrong date.
He also called into question allegations by Ms Clark that had not been relied upon during the original court hearing that she had been subjected to nightly abuse while visiting Scott in Melbourne.
Mr Howell recalled evidence from the hearing given by roommates and teammates of Scott, including Scott Drinkwater who shared a wall with Scott at the Melbourne apartment unit.
Mr Drinkwater told the court he did not hear the abuse described by Ms Clark – including her screaming for help, and recalled only a singular allegedly abusive incident known as the “Uber” incident.
In response, Justice Abadee said: “Is it possible that your client may have been someone conscious of the presence of other people in his four-bedroom house?
“That could explain he did not act violently against the complainant?”
Mr Howell later questioned evidence given by Ms Clark’s teen sister who previously testified she saw an altercation at a Lake Conjola holiday house, during which Ms Clark claimed Scott had assaulted her.
The court was told the incident occurred about 11pm at the front of the home which, despite evidence from Ms Clark’s sister, was not lit from any street lamps.
Mr Howell said it was unlikely Ms Clark’s sister could have seen the incident from her position inside of a vehicle in the driveway given the poor lighting.
Scott was found not guilty during the original hearing of the assault owing to inconsistent evidence about Ms Clark’s injuries, Mr Howell told the court on Monday.
Mr Howell said Scott had not made threats to kill Ms Clark before driving his car into a tree in Melbourne.
Scott was alleged to have told Ms Clark: “I’m going to kill you, c**t.”
Instead, Mr Howell claimed he was instead talking about himself.
He further said Scott screamed out the profanity moments before impact.
The court was told the allegations of death threats were not mentioned in Ms Clark’s later conversations with the NRL, and were not reported until they later statements to police.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday.