What the jury was never told about 'high-profile Melbourne rapist' Ralph Carr - and why he was confident of victory with his top shelf barrister

By WAYNE FLOWER, SENIOR NEWS REPORTER, AUSTRALIA Published: 02:35, 4 August 2026 | Updated: 02:54, 4 August 2026 Rapist Ralph Carr had walked into his trial confident of victory after a swag of damning 'evidence' was dumped before it even began.  It's a reality of criminal trials as old as the hills that, before an accused steps foot before a jury, a trial has already effectively been held in secret, during pre-trial hearings to determine evidence.  A trial can be won before it ever gets underway. And Carr had one of the very best legal minds, Dermot Dann KC, in his corner when it came to the nitty gritty of pulling apart a prosecution case.  Sometimes, during pre-trial hearings, the evidence police have based their entire case on gets tossed away altogether.  In the recent case of the once allegedly murdered teenager Isla Bell, police claimed to have had a rock solid case against her accused.  That evidence was effectively tossed behind closed doors - and the murder charges disappeared.  Mushroom killer Erin Patterson enjoyed the mother of all pre-trial victories.  Rapist Ralph Carr and his highly regarded - and high-priced - barrister Dermot Dann KC Some of the 'evidence' she had dumped behind the jury's back still cannot be reported on to this very day.    In Carr's case, he must have sipped on some pretty fine wine the day judge Frank Gucciardo tossed out the DNA evidence police hoped would help provide them with a slam dunk conviction.  The jury never heard the results of an early evidence kit, in which the complainant took the swabs from her vagina herself in a bathroom at a police station, the Herald Sun reported. It could not be certain if Carr's victim followed the steps correctly or used the gloves provided. Two male profiles were found in the sample, with Mr Dann arguing it could be concluded the DNA was from an indirect or secondary transfer from other social contact. Judge Gucciardo disagreed with the prosecution’s submissions that the jury could draw 'a very strong inference' from the evidence. The respected judge said the way the test was conducted meant its probative value was 'outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused'. Former AFL star Dustin Martin and Carr. Carr once shoved this reporter during a media conference with Martin 'The jury could not properly use the evidence rationally,' Judge Gucciardo ruled. The early evidence kit was completed because Carr's victim was deemed too drunk to give consent to undergo an examination by a forensic medical officer. 'The complainant was asked to sign a consent form as part of the EEK process, which would appear contrary to the view of her capacity to sign a consent form for a forensic medical exam,' Judge Gucciardo said. Carr had another win when the cops who first attended the crime scene broke the cardinal rule of evidence collection in a mind boggling way.  Anyone who has ever watched a crime show knows you whack on some rubber gloves before handling potential evidence. Nope, not in this case.  The court heard the carefree way Carr's clothes were collected by police meant any DNA evidence on them was inadmissible. Carr had been asked by an officer to fetch the clothes himself, including a pair of jeans and underpants, out of his washing machine and put them in paper evidence bags without any gloves. Carr , centre, outside the County Court of Victoria before he was jailed  The court heard a DNA profile found on his underpants was 'one million times' more likely to be contributed by his victim. 'The underpants were mixed together with other items in the washing machine,' Judge Gucciardo said, adding secondary transfer was possible given the social interactions between the pair earlier that evening, and the fact they had also used the same toilet. The officer did not check what other clothes items were in the full machine. Even the prosecution conceded the way the clothing was retrieved was 'not best practice'.  Juries are told not to read the newspapers or do any research online.  It is a fair direction, too, because Carr had previously been exposed not telling the truth years earlier when he denied shoving a journalist in the back during a Dustin Martin press event.  Carr was called out over the shove and he blatantly denied he had done it. But shove he most certainly did - to this very reporter.    Mr Dann even managed to have evidence told to the jury that the prosecution had never wanted them to know.  Ralph Carr and pop sensation Tina Arena in 1996. Arena was Carr's ex-wife The prosecution had fought hard in a pre-trial hearing to have the evidence of the two police officers thrown out, labelling it a 'distraction' for the jury. Those cops had previously arrested the complainant over a drink-driving incident in 2019 to show she had a tendency to be dishonest and provide false statements. The evidence could have sank the prosecution case.   But despite all of the pre-trial victories, like Erin Patterson, Carr was found guilty all the same.   Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.