Guy Sebastian was evasive, jury told

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
·3-min read
In this article:
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Guy Sebastian was evasive and "had a barrow to push" when the pop star testified at the embezzlement trial of his ex-manager, a jury has been told.

"You should approach anything Mr Sebastian says with a very cautious eye," Titus Day's barrister said on Friday in his closing address.

Day, 49, has pleaded not guilty to dozens of charges alleging he embezzled almost $900,000 owed to Sebastian through royalties, performance and ambassador fees.

Day managed the Australian Idol winner for eight years up to 2017 when the business relationship ended acrimoniously.

His barrister Dominic Toomey SC told the NSW District Court jurors they must acquit if there was a reasonable possibility Day was not acting dishonestly in relation to monies collected and paid out.

"We submit that Mr Sebastian presented as a person with a barrow to push," he said.

"He had an agenda."

The jurors may think he was evasive in the answers he gave under cross-examination.

"Indeed, I would like to suggest to you that if I had put to Mr Sebastian the proposition that the sun rises in the east, he might have asked me what I was insinuating."

This was in stark contrast to co-operative and short answers he gave to the prosecutor.

But when Mr Toomey questioned him, he went "off on a narrative of his own".

"He was careful not to give any evidence which he thought might favour Mr Day.

"He twisted himself in knots in his evidence in an attempt not to acknowledge the existence of an agreement between him and Mr Day.

"He couldn't bring himself to use the word 'contract' in respect to his arrangement with Mr Day."

The musician filed a Federal Court civil lawsuit against Day in July 2018, before approaching police two years later.

This was done through Sebastian's friend Tim Freeburn who put him in touch with Detective Senior Constable David Murphy with whom he played cricket.

"That in itself, you might think, is a most unusual situation," Mr Toomey said.

"That an officer in charge of a criminal investigation should have some social connection with the complainant in that criminal investigation."

Suggesting a conflict of interest, Mr Toomey listed inquiries the detective did not make in relation to the allegations.

"Was it because he was wilfully blind or was it because he was seeking to help his friend and his friend's friend?" he asked.

The barrister suggested the charging of Day "was an end in itself".

"He (Det Murphy) told you himself that he took everything he had been told by Mr Sebastian to be gospel," Mr Toomey said.

"He quite remarkably agreed with the proposition that it was 'the gospel according to Guy'."

Mr Toomey took the jury through transactions, saying one failure to pay was an oversight while another was nothing but an honest error.

He referred to Sebastian receiving payment in kind for some services he provided, submitting his manager was entitled to commission on "contra" deals.

"The crown view of the world is Mr Day provide his services to Mr Sebastian out of the goodness of his heart," he said.

He also referred to evidence about using money that came in to hold for other payments owed.

He asked if Sebastian was suffering from "buyer's remorse" when he said he did not authorise the buying of shares which lost money.

Mr Toomey will continue his address on Monday.

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting