Tessa Lee, Sports journalist reporting on global leagues since 2021.
Nicky Winmar’s court hearing continued in Bendigo on Wednesday, with a Victorian magistrates court hearing claims that the former AFL star was acting in self defence during an alleged assault incident in May last year. Neil Elvis “Nicky” Winmar has pleaded not guilty to charges including unlawful assault and intentionally causing injury. The case matters because it centres on sharply conflicting accounts of what happened on the night in question.
The contested hearing before the Bendigo Magistrates’ Court followed evidence given on Tuesday by the complainant, who told the court she feared for her life during the alleged incident.
She alleged Winmar smashed her head into a door, dragged her by her ponytail, and grabbed and twisted her arm.
On Wednesday, defence barrister Dermot Dann KC challenged that version of events and put forward a different account during cross examination.
Defence argues Winmar was protecting himself
Dann suggested to the woman that she had lost control during the confrontation and had begun throwing punches at Winmar.
“He was trying to protect himself and fend off your punches,” Dann told the court.
He further said one of those punches caused a cut to Winmar’s face, an injury that was allegedly later observed by police.
The woman rejected that account.
“No, that is not true. I did not,” she told the court.
The defence also alleged that parts of her evidence had been exaggerated in order to make the incident appear more serious.
Dann suggested that she had made multiple false allegations “to make the incident sound as bad as possible for Mr Winmar”.
The woman denied that claim. She told the court some details had not been included in her initial police statement because recounting the events had been painful.
Friend gives evidence about phone call
The court also heard evidence from a friend the woman contacted on the night of the alleged incident.
The witness said the woman sounded “hysterical” and “incredibly upset” during the phone call.
According to the witness, Winmar could be heard in the background saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”
That testimony formed part of the prosecution’s effort to establish the complainant’s emotional state immediately after the alleged confrontation.
However, the credibility of that witness was also challenged during cross examination.
Witness questioned over past misleading evidence
During questioning by the defence, the friend admitted to having previously given misleading evidence in separate court proceedings.
That admission became a significant point of scrutiny in Wednesday’s hearing.
The cross examination became tense at times, prompting Magistrate Trieu Huynh to intervene.
The magistrate asked the witness to “calm down a little bit” during one combative exchange.
The court has not yet made any findings about the reliability of the witness or the competing accounts presented by the parties.
Conflicting accounts remain central
The hearing has highlighted sharply different versions of the alleged incident.
The prosecution case relies heavily on the complainant’s account that she was assaulted and feared for her safety.
The defence position is that Winmar was attempting to protect himself during a physical confrontation and that aspects of the allegations have been disputed.
At this stage, the magistrates court is hearing evidence and testing the credibility of witnesses. The proceedings are not a trial before a jury, and the court will ultimately determine what evidence it accepts.
Winmar remains before the court having entered not guilty pleas to the charges.
Hearing to continue with further witnesses
Further witnesses are expected to be called when the contested hearing resumes.
Those witnesses may provide additional context about the events surrounding the alleged incident, including the circumstances before and after the confrontation.
The case remains at an evidentiary stage, and no verdict has been delivered.
Court reporting standards require that allegations remain unproven unless and until the court determines otherwise.
The Bendigo Magistrates’ Court will continue hearing evidence before deciding the next steps in the matter.
