A judge has reserved his decision on whether a Perth woman, who alleges she was sexually abused for years by "sporting icon" Barry Cable, is entitled to be compensated for the "catastrophic" harm she claims he caused her.
Key points:
- Mr Cable is accused of "brazenly" and "pervasively" sexually assaulting a child
- He categorically denies all allegations
- The judge did not give a time frame for his decision in the civil case
The woman, who cannot be identified, is suing Mr Cable for around $1 million in damages over allegations he repeatedly abused her over about five years when she was a teenager in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
She also claims the "sexual contact" and "harassment" by Mr Cable continued for more than a decade after she turned 18.
Mr Cable categorically denies all the allegations and while there was a police investigation in 1998, he has never been charged.
Four other women also say Cable abused them
The woman's case has been aired publicly in the District Court over the past week, and included evidence from four other women, three of whom only came forward during the hearing, who testified they too were sexually abused by Mr Cable when they were children.
Because the case is a civil one, and not criminal, the court has heard the evidence of the other women may not be admissible as part of the plaintiff's claim.
On Friday, on the final day of the hearing, the woman's barrister Tim Hammond argued the evidence should be considered by the judge because of the "striking similarities" between the four women's claims.
One of the common characteristics of the alleged abuse Mr Hammond outlined was "the pattern, nature and brazenness of the sexual assaults" which he said took place "while others were present or in the same vicinity".
He said another similar feature was that the alleged abuse happened "in the course of water play ... in a shower, a pool or in a spa".
Cable 'abused trust'
He maintained the evidence demonstrated that Mr Cable had a sexual interest in young girls with whom he was in a position of trust, and he was willing to act on that.
Judge Mark Herron questioned whether the evidence could be relied on because the women had alleged abuse by Mr Cable in the 1980s and 1990s, which was years after the abuse the plaintiff claimed she suffered.
But Mr Hammond said his client sought to rely on the testimony only to establish that there was childhood sexual abuse by Mr Cable, and he submitted the woman's case did not rise or fall on the other women's evidence.
Mr Hammond told the court ultimately the woman's case was a "credibility" one, maintaining that her two days of testimony was "entirely credible".
"Over five years as a child the sexual abuse was constant, pervasive and all encompassing," he said.
"He was a neighbour, but he was more than that ... he was regarded as a sporting icon in this state. His conduct constituted an abhorrent breach of trust."
Abuse 'impacted every facet of her life'
He said the abuse evoked within his client, feelings of shame and guilt, which in her own words left her feeling "contaminated, putrid and dirty".
"It completely shattered the confidence of a young girl who otherwise was bright and had the world at her feet ... it impacted on every facet of her life," Mr Hammond said.
Mr Cable is not represented by a lawyer at the hearing, and he is taking no part in proceedings, instead relying on written material that has already been filed in the case, in which he denies the sexual abuse.
Judge Herron revealed on Friday that Mr Cable had submitted three pages of written closing submissions which he had signed.
The court heard while there was no evidence that Mr Cable, who is now 79, was in ill health or would not have been able to follow proceedings, the reason he had provided for not attending the hearing was that he could not afford a lawyer.
"I don't think his absence is unexplained, whether it is reasonable is a different thing." Judge Herron noted.
At the end of proceedings Judge Herron reserved his decision, saying he did not want to give a time frame for his ruling because it may be unreliable.