Complainant H

Alleged Alan Jones victim Complainant H’s testimony

Complainant H, who McClymont claimed was in his early 30s (He was 37) was deputy CEO of a medical foundation. He was described by Sydney Morning Herald’s Kate McClymont on 4 May 2024 as “another young man” and “decades younger than Mr Jones”. 

Complainant H said that he met Alan Jones at a fundraising event in in the boardroom of a Sydney hospital in 2019. As an aside, a function that was attended by about 14 potential donors and Foundation staff. The dinner raised $9 million. 

Complainant “H” testified that “Mr Jones was standing next to him at the event, put his hand on his upper back and then just slowly sort of ran it down his spine and just rested it on the top of his buttocks.” 

Complainant H said he did not say anything to Mr Jones at the time and does not recall reacting physically because he “didn’t want to cause a scene”. He said: “I thought that [complaining] could potentially ruin the night.” 

Subsequently, complainant H alleged that he told a female work colleague that he “froze”. As “froze” is a verb, it contradicts his claim that he couldn’t recall reacting physically. Suffice to say, if he froze, the men talking with him would have noticed his physical reaction and presumably, attempted to thaw him. 

Complainant H said he felt uncomfortable and helpless and claimed that he told his boss that night, straight after the event, and she was furious.”

“I said that I felt disgusting and powerless and that’s really the first time I’ve understood what women have been going through for all these years.” My comment: Clearly, if he thought allegedly being touched on the top of his buttocks equates to “what women have been going through for all these years”, he is mentally retarded.

As it transpired, Complainant H was not telling the truth about when he raised the allegation with his CEO. When Complainant H’s chief executive officer testified as a prosecution witness, she said that Complainant H did notraise the allegation on the night of the dinner. She also said that there was no incident [at the dinner] out of the ordinary. 

She said that the complainant, the deputy CEO, did not complain that night (my emphasis), a Thursday night. He did not complain on Friday, but he complained to her the following week. She gave evidence that the complainant did not want her to follow up. He wanted things to be confidential.

During her testimony, the CEO said that Jones had facilitated conversation in the evening and that he was one of the first guests to leave and that the host, Mr Brent Potts, helped him leave because there was significant security in the corporate building.

Given the dinner was held on 9 May 2019, the defence, in cross-examination, tabled a letter of 3 June 2019 from the same CEO. It read in part:

“Dear Mr Jones, I’m writing again to thank you for your very generous support of the Foundation and St. Vincent‘s Hospital and in particular your attendance at our Blue Ocean equity dinner to raise funds for an emergency trauma operating theatre with a mega raptor.” She ended thanking Jones for his support and said, “I look forward to celebrating with you, in October, the 35th anniversary of the Foundation.” 

This letter was sent over three weeks after Complainant H had made his allegation to her about Jones having his hand on his back and sliding it down to the top of his buttocks. She also gave evidence that the complainant went to the police with no mention of this to her. As a result, she said she was contacted by the media and the police.

Statements were also tendered to the court and read into the record of many people who were there who “did not see anything”.

While giving evidence, Complainant H was asked: 

• Did you react / No. 
  
  
• Did you say anything / No. 
  
  
• Did the defendant make an impression on your butt /No. 
  
  
• In the group of three with the defendant, what were you talking about / don’t know. 
  
  
• Who were you talking to? / Don’t know. 
  
  
• Did you try to disengage from the defendant when he allegedly touched you / NO. 
  
  
• Did you make any outward expression of disapproval /no. 
  
  
• Did you tell anyone at the time at the dinner / no.
  
  
• Did you give the name of one of the guests to [Kate] McClymont / yes. 
  
  
• Did you say that after that “episode” “I had no contact at all with Alan Jones”/yes.
  
  
• But isn’t it true that only a couple of months later, you were recommending Alan Jones to address another fundraiser? 
  
  

The dinner in question was held on 9 May 2019. As is Jones’ custom, on 13 May, Jones wrote to Complainant H to thank him and his people for their time. The letter included, “Congratulations on the wonderful work you are doing. Always shout if I can give a hand. It’s a wonderful institution doing magnificent things. 

Complainant H responded the same day.

 ” Hi Alan. It is us that should thank you. You did a great job. I was very impressed and we would love to have you at similar events in the future.  I know how early you wake up so I really appreciate you attending an evening event.”

Incomprehensibly, this was the same person who was saying that four days earlier that Jones had assaulted him and he was distressed and had been the victim of “unwanted touching”. 

Furthermore, Complainant H lied because his response came four days later and that he’d said that after the event (9 May 2019), he had no contact with Jones again. 

Jones’ team produced several emails from H that said, “Try for Alan again, he was good.” That was on 16 May only a week after the alleged incident in question. Then there was talk about celebrating the birthday of the Foundation and Jones’ name was their first choice as guest speaker.

Complainant H was then reminded that he was subpoenaed on 12 December 2025, to produce messages, emails, documents etc. He responded that he didn’t have time. However, Jones’ team had unearthed the fact that the police had requested the same material, and they were given the documents. 

He was asked, in relation to the incident, did he keep any contemporaneous notes /no. 

The court was told that at the time he was 37 years old. He did not recall where the dinner was. He did not know who was responsible for the seating plan or the order of events that night. Who settled on the bios for the guest /I don’t recall.

Complainant H accepted that he had discussed what the “police strategy” may be in text messages to a colleague, who he allegedly confided in about the incident.

The court heard when the complainant was asked during a meeting with the prosecution what he meant by that message he told them: “Like all the stories, everyone’s all need to align basically.”

Defence barrister Gabrielle Bashir SC asked Complainant H if police had spoken to him about “tendency evidence” during their investigation, to which he asked, “what is tendency evidence?”

In his testimony, he appeared to make a Freudian slip. He said: “I just didn’t realise what had happened to me was a crime, I thought it was being used as a pattern of behaviour.” As it transpires, tendency evidence, which he claimed he didn’t know what it meant, is defined as a pattern of behaviour. Clearly, he had discussed pattern of behaviour with the police and McClymont.

He was asked if he knew McClymont had recorded their telephone conversations /no. 

Did you approve of the conversation being recorded /no. 

He was then taken to a second statement to the police but there was no mention of his butt or bottom.

He was then taken to a stack of phone calls he had made to the police and to McClymont. Jones’ team had the details of these calls, word perfect. He kept on saying he had spoken to two women including the then CEO and was asked, amongst other things, “did you say I hope they charge him”. Answer / yes. 

Did you say, “everything will be perfect when they charge him” Answered yes. 

Did McClymont discuss with you what Jones had done, not allegedly done with other people. Answer / yes. 

Did you discuss with McClymont what the police strategy might be? Answer /yes. Were you assured that you could not be sued /yes. 

Were you told that a lawyer will protect you? /yes. 

Did you insist that your name not be used /yes. Did you say, “hope you get him” / yes. 

Do you know who was sitting next to you at the dinner? /No. 

Did you tell McClymont that those present at the dinner were, “old, white wealthy men” 

Under cross examination, Complainant H was questioned about his memory of the event, and accepted he gave different people, including police, different accounts of when during the event that the alleged touch happened. 

Complainant H told the court he could not recall exactly at what point of the event the incident occurred. He also accepted he did not make a formal complaint when he told his boss, nor did he write down notes of the alleged assault.

Evidence was tabled that in correspondence he called Jones a pig on three occasions. 

Complainant H testified that in 2023, he saw an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which contained allegations about Mr Jones.

He said he contacted the author, journalist Kate McClymont, and told her what allegedly happened to him at the event.

Complainant H said he did not give the journalist permission to tell his story, but in May 2024, he noticed a second story published by Ms McClymont with his allegations included, but not his name.

When asked by prosecutor Georgina Wright SC whether he authorised that information to be published, the man said he did not.

“Were you upset about that?” Ms Wright asked.

“Yes, I was.” He said, ‘I hope [Jones] gets what he deserves’

 The next witness was another employee of the Foundation. She had had a conversation with the complainant several days after the dinner. 

She didn’t attend the dinner. She confirmed that Complainant H had told her that Jones had run his hand on his back and “ran it across his buttocks”. As an aside, this contradicted Complainant H’s version of where he alleged he was touched.

She was asked what she did about all of this and she said she did not do anything. 

She was asked to recall what he told her, 

She was asked when this happened and she had no idea. She said that the complainant was visibly upset days later. She said she didn’t tell anyone as he told her not to tell anyone. 

She made no notes of the conversation, but it was clear from the text messages that were recovered by subpoena that there was endless communication between this woman and Complainant H about the issue. 

The language and the allegations against Jones in the communication between the complainant and this woman were mind-boggling. 

She admitted that none of the contacts that the complainant had alleged on the night were contained in her statement or his, but she was constantly checking that everything she said was consistent with the complainant’s allegations.

During the text exchange, Complainant H said, “everything needs to be perfect when they [police] charge him”, while referencing how long the police investigation may take.

The next witness was the host for the evening, the ex-chairman of Blue Ocean equities, Mr Brent Potts. He was asked if he saw any incident untoward and said he didn’t. He explained where Jones sat that night. He explained that after the dinner, Jones was one of the first to leave and he showed him out of the building. He disputed the previous evidence that I had been chatting with people in the Southwest corner of this massive boardroom. He gave evidence that he didn’t ever see me in that spot. He was asked if anything untoward had happened, then he would remember, wouldn’t he? 

As Jones has not testified, we do not know his version of events other than he has pleaded not guilty to every charge.

However, given the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, res ipsa loquitur, Jones’ legal team should move to dismiss the charge for the following reasons. Complainant H’s:

1. Fulsome praise of Jones’ contribution to the success of the dinner negates his claim of wrongdoing.
   
   
2. Intention to use Jones at future functions
   
   
3. Inconsistent testimony as to where the alleged touch occurred. Complainant H has variously said “at the top of the bottom; top of buttocks; and bottom. His female staff colleague said Complainant H had said “across the buttocks”
   
   
4. False claim that he told his CEO on the same night about his allegation
   
   
5. Evidence that he colluded with the police and McClymont to ensure the prosecutor could run the tendency argument
   
   
6. Contradictory claim that he didn’t react physically, but he froze.
   
   
7. Acknowledgement that all the witnesses evidence needed to align. The court heard when the complainant was asked during a meeting with the prosecution what he meant by that message he told them: “Like all the stories, everyone’s all need to align basically.”
   
   
8. Lied about not having any contact with Jones after the dinner on 9 May 2019. 
   
   
9. Intense dislike like for Jones. The court heard the complainant sent a text message to his colleague saying he hoped he could “help get Alan for others”. Complainant H accepted he had previously sent messages referencing Mr Jones and former Wallaby Israel Folau. The man said he knew Mr Jones had been a “staunch defender” of Mr Folau after the rugby player made a post to social media, which included the phrase “hell awaits homosexuals”.