Man accused of raping stranger during Grindr 'hook up' faces Supreme Court trial

CONTENT WARNING: This article refers to an alleged sexual assault.

A man is accused of raping a stranger after the pair met on the gay dating app Grindr, despite the “clear verbal insistence” that the latter did not consent, a prosecutor has said.

Daniel William Monie pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual intercourse without consent over his alleged actions in the incident from December 2021, jurors heard when his trial began in the ACT Supreme Court on Monday (24 July).

In her opening submissions, prosecutor Skye Jerome said the trial was about two strangers who met to share a sexual experience with no strings attached.

She said the pair started talking over Grindr before texting each other on their mobile phones and the complainant went over to Mr Monie’s home in Braddon that same night.

While there was some consensual sexual activity, the complainant claims he told Mr Monie he didn’t want to have anal sex.

But it is alleged Mr Monie sexually assaulted him twice, in alleged acts of digital and penile-anal rape.

Afterwards, the complainant says he stayed in the bedroom, feeling upset and “in a weird space”, then went into the bathroom and saw he was bleeding, Ms Jerome said.

He returned to the room and the pair had consensual sex again before he left in the morning.

The complainant was the first person to give evidence in the trial, telling the jurors that Grindr was a dating platform used by gay, bisexual, queer and questioning people who were looking to go on dates or have sex.

It was mostly used for “hooking up”, he said, which meant physical pleasure without strings attached.

He said he didn’t use his own name on the app, saying it was rare for people to do so, but he did have a picture of himself.

In the opening submissions from Mr Monie’s barrister, Matthew Johnston SC, he told the jurors that some of the information in the trial was not in dispute, saying the pair had “hooked up” via Grindr that night and the complainant had gone to his client’s home for sexual activity.

But he claimed that all of the sexual activity was consensual.

Mr Johnston argued that the main dispute in the matter came from ineffective communication between the pair in the lead-up to the night and when at his client’s home.

He said he expected Mr Monie would give evidence in the trial himself and would say the conduct had been consensual and he had believed the complainant was also consenting.

The jury trial continues before Justice Chrissa Loukas-Karlsson.