A former AFL footballer has been cross-examined about his alcohol consumption in the hours before he was allegedly raped, in a civil lawsuit that has put victim-blaming tactics on trial alongside the assault allegations.
Daniel Hayes, who played for Carlton and Port Adelaide, is suing over an alleged sexual assault, according to ABC reporting from the courtroom proceedings. The cross-examination focused extensively on how much Hayes had drunk before the alleged assault, questions that legal experts say echo the problematic victim-blaming often directed at women in sexual assault cases.
Mate, here's what happens when a man comes forward about sexual assault: he gets asked the same victim-blaming questions that have traumatised female survivors for decades. How much did you drink? What were you wearing? Why did you go there? As if any of that justifies rape.
The case is being heard in civil court rather than criminal court, where the burden of proof is lower. Civil cases require proof on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, making them an alternative pathway for sexual assault survivors when criminal prosecution isn't pursued or doesn't result in conviction.
The cross-examination strategy, focusing on Hayes' drinking and behaviour, reflects defence tactics commonly used in sexual assault cases. The implicit suggestion is that alcohol consumption somehow mitigates the alleged assault or makes the victim partially responsible for what happened. Legal experts have long criticised this approach as irrelevant to consent and traumatising for survivors.
The case also highlights the particular challenges male survivors face when reporting sexual assault. Men are statistically less likely to report sexual assault than women, partly due to social stigma and assumptions that men cannot be victims. When they do come forward, they often face disbelief and victim-blaming similar to what female survivors experience, compounded by toxic masculinity norms that suggest men should always be able to defend themselves.
Hayes' decision to pursue civil litigation rather than rely solely on criminal prosecution reflects a broader trend of sexual assault survivors seeking justice through multiple legal pathways. Civil cases can provide financial compensation for trauma and allow survivors to tell their stories even when criminal convictions are difficult to secure given the high burden of proof.
The courtroom proceedings have been closely watched by sexual assault prevention advocates, who see the case as an important test of whether male survivors will be treated with the same respect and credibility as female survivors, or whether they'll face additional barriers based on gender stereotypes.
Reaction on r/australia was limited but supportive of Hayes, with commenters noting the courage required for a male athlete to come forward about sexual assault in a culture that often denies men can be victims. Several pointed out the hypocrisy of society claiming to take male sexual assault seriously while subjecting male survivors to the same victim-blaming that traumatises female survivors.
The case continues, with Hayes expected to give further evidence. Regardless of the outcome, the proceedings have already sparked conversation about how Australia responds to male survivors of sexual assault and whether the legal system can move beyond victim-blaming tactics that have been discredited but remain depressingly common.
