A Survivor Reading This in the Dark: You Are Not Alone, and the Law Stands With You
If you are reading this page, something terrible has likely just happened, or just been remembered. You may be in a hospital bed in Melbourne. You may be in a police interview room. You may be sitting alone in the early hours, with a feeling in your body that you cannot name yet, wondering if what happened was even a crime, and whether anyone will believe you, and whether the law can do anything at all for someone who stepped into a stranger’s car because the app told her it was safe.
We want you to hear this first, before anything else: what happened to you was a crime. Under the Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria), sexual penetration without consent is rape, and a person who is asleep, unconscious, or so affected by alcohol or any other substance as to be incapable of consenting cannot, as a matter of law, give consent. The fact that you got into the car voluntarily does not change that. The fact that the driver was “off the app” does not change that. The fact that you had been drinking does not change that. Under Victorian law, a predator who waits outside an LGBTQI+ venue, lures a patron into his vehicle, and sexually assaults her is guilty of rape, and the businesses whose systems made the encounter possible carry their own civil accountability.
The criminal case will proceed through the Office of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. The civil case, which is the one that pays for your recovery, runs in parallel. We are writing this page for you, and for any family member or friend reading it beside you, to explain what the civil case looks like, who can be held to account, what evidence matters and how fast it disappears, what compensation the law allows, and how our firm can help you find an experienced Victorian practitioner to run that fight.
What the Dossier Tells Us About This Case
On 25 January 2026, a 23-year-old woman attended the Peel Hotel, a well-known LGBTQI+ venue on the corner of Peel and Wellington Streets in Collingwood, with her girlfriend and her girlfriend’s sister. After an argument with her partner, she left the venue alone shortly before 5 a.m. and attempted to book a rideshare to her partner’s accommodation in South Yarra. CCTV obtained by police showed a vehicle matching the description of a rideshare vehicle circling the Peel Hotel area — what investigators described as “doing laps” — before the woman entered it.
What followed, according to the evidence placed before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court at the committal hearing, is that the driver identified to police as Mohamed Abukar, a 44-year-old man who was working for the Chinese rideshare platform DiDi, allegedly told the woman he would take her home after confirming she was not a booked DiDi customer. She drifted in and out of consciousness during the trip. She woke to the driver touching her leg and thigh, and then putting his hand inside her underwear. CCTV showed the vehicle parked along a street in Collingwood for eleven minutes during the trip, with the driver exiting his side and moving to the passenger side, before the car resumed and dropped her at her partner’s South Yarra address at 5.43 a.m.
She was found shortly after, facedown and asleep in the hallway of her partner’s apartment. The matter was reported to police. DiDi informed investigators that the driver had not been online on the platform at the time. The driver was charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault.
The court also heard that this was not the first complaint. In 2022, a different complaint had been made against the same driver, alleging he had asked a male victim to perform oral sex on him in his vehicle. That complainant did not proceed. In 2023, Abukar collected a woman from the Peel Hotel and allegedly placed his hand down her pants during the trip. That complaint was initially not pursued, but was reopened on the same day the committal hearing concluded. The investigating officer told the court: “The accused appears to be targeting the Peel Hotel for unknown reasons. It is an LGBTQI+ venue and typically those people struggle to come forward to report. He had been doing laps around the area around the hotel prior to picking up the victim.”
The magistrate refused bail.
The Three Doors Your Case Opens in Victoria
The criminal case is the first door. It will be prosecuted by the Office of Public Prosecutions in the County Court of Victoria, and it carries the weight of the state. It will produce a verdict of guilty or not guilty, and, if guilty, a sentence. It is not, however, designed to pay for the lifetime cost of recovery. That is the second door, and that is the one we will help you walk through.
Door One: The criminal prosecution. This is the State of Victoria v. Abukar. You are a witness, not a party. The prosecution carries the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. You do not need to hire a lawyer to participate, but you are entitled to a Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) application through the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT), and you are entitled to a range of protective measures, including a non-publication order, the right to give evidence via closed-circuit television, and the right to have a support person beside you. If you have not already been put in touch with the Victoria Police Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team, ask for that connection today.
Door Two: The civil damages claim against the perpetrator. Under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), a person who commits an intentional tort, including sexual assault and battery, is liable to pay the victim damages. The civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The damages can be substantial. We explain this in detail below.
Door Three: The civil damages claim against third parties. This is where the cases most often produce real recovery, because the individual perpetrator, whatever the verdict, often lacks the means to pay a meaningful damages award. The commercial passenger vehicle operator, the venue operator, and any other entity whose systems, premises, or decisions enabled the assault can be held to account under Victorian law. This is the case we know how to run.
We do not promise that any of these defendants will pay. We promise that the law gives you a real path to hold them to account, and we will work with experienced Victorian counsel to walk that path with you.
Who Can Be Sued in a Victorian Rideshare Sexual Assault Case
The short answer is: more people than you might think, and our job at the front door of your case is to find every one of them.
The Driver
Mohamed Abukar is named as the perpetrator in the criminal case, and he is the primary defendant in the civil case. Under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), an intentional tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of the harm caused, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, past and future medical and psychological treatment costs, past and future loss of earning capacity, and out-of-pocket expenses. Under section 37A of the Wrongs Act, where the conduct is deliberate or shows contumelious disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, exemplary damages may also be awarded, designed to punish and deter. The Wrongs Act 1958 was specifically amended to ensure that victims of intentional torts can recover damages for pain and suffering without being forced to meet the “significant injury” threshold that gates negligence-only claims.
The civil case against the driver will depend on his means, which we will investigate, and on whether any motor vehicle or other insurance is in play. The reality is that in most cases of this kind, the individual perpetrator does not have the financial resources to satisfy a substantial damages award, and the second and third doors — the platform and the venue — become critical.
DiDi, the Rideshare Platform
This is the door the platform will tell you is closed. It is not.
The “the driver was offline” answer DiDi gave to police is the centre of their defence. It is also the centre of ours, because there are several reasons why that answer does not end the inquiry.
The Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 (Vic) and the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Regulations 2018 create a regulatory regime in which a “booking service provider” — that is, a company like DiDi that connects passengers with drivers through an app — owes safety duties to the public. A booking service provider must take such measures as are reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise the risks to public safety created by the operation of the booking service. The fact that the driver was logged off the platform does not eliminate the booking service’s safety duty; it may, in fact, sharpen it, because the platform’s awareness that its drivers may also be soliciting passengers informally, and the platform’s knowledge that predatory drivers may pose as platform drivers to lure passengers, are both foreseeable risks that the safety duty is designed to address.
The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and the common law of negligence, vicarious liability, and apparent agency provide separate paths to hold DiDi to account:
- Direct corporate negligence. A booking service that screens, trains, monitors, and supervises its drivers owes a duty of reasonable care to the passengers those drivers will carry. If the screening was inadequate, if warnings about the driver were ignored, if complaints about similar predatory behaviour were not acted on, the booking service can be held directly liable for its own failure to take reasonable care.
- Vicarious liability. Under Australian law, the boundary between employee and independent contractor is drawn by the multi-factor tests developed in cases such as Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 and refined in Personality Rights decisions. The more a platform controls the means and manner of the driver’s work, the more likely the driver is to be found, in law, an employee or agent of the platform for the purposes of the platform’s liabilities. The fact that the platform’s contract labels the driver as an “independent contractor” is one factor. The fact that the platform dictates the branding, the rating system, the fare structure, the destination routing, the GPS tracking, the in-app communications, the cancellation policies, the standards of service, and the visual identity of the vehicle is a great many other factors.
- Apparent agency. In Hitchcox v. Moramba Holdings and in subsequent appellate reasoning, Australian courts have recognised that a person who holds out another as their agent can be bound by that holding-out, even if no actual agency relationship exists. A driver in a vehicle branded as a DiDi vehicle, wearing DiDi identifiers, holding out a phone showing a DiDi booking screen, is, in the eyes of the passenger, DiDi. The platform cannot present the driver as itself for commercial purposes and then disclaim the driver for liability purposes.
- Vicarious liability for independent contractors under statute. Some Australian jurisdictions have introduced statutory provisions extending vicarious liability to certain relationships involving independent contractors. The Victorian framework for commercial passenger vehicle operators must be examined carefully, in close coordination with local counsel, for any such provision that may apply to booking service providers.
The fact that the driver was “offline” matters, but it does not matter the way DiDi wants it to. We investigate what “offline” actually meant, what the driver told the victim, whether the vehicle displayed any DiDi identification, whether the driver was holding a phone that displayed any DiDi interface, and whether the victim believed, and was reasonable in believing, that she was engaging a DiDi service. The fact that the driver was allegedly doing laps around the Peel Hotel — a venue known to the rideshare industry as an LGBTQI+ destination with a late-night patronage pattern — is itself evidence that the driver was operating in the commercial passenger vehicle market, whether or not the app was active.
DiDi also has Australian subsidiary entities. Our investigation identifies the specific DiDi entity that operates in Australia, and we name the correct defendant. Naming the wrong entity is a common mistake in cross-border platform cases, and it can be fatal to the claim.
The Peel Hotel
The Peel Hotel is named in the criminal-court evidence as a venue the driver was specifically targeting. Court records describe the driver “doing laps” around the venue, with the investigating officer stating that the driver appeared to be targeting the venue and its LGBTQI+ patrons. The driver had allegedly collected another woman from the Peel Hotel in 2023 in circumstances that involved an alleged sexual assault, and the matter was reopened on the same day as the present committal hearing.
Under Victorian law, the occupier of a place to which the public is invited owes a duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm to persons lawfully on the premises. That duty extends, in some circumstances, to the safety of patrons as they enter and leave the venue, particularly where the venue is aware, or ought to be aware, of foreseeable risks to patrons from third-party criminal conduct in the immediate vicinity. Where a venue has actual or constructive knowledge of a pattern of predatory behaviour by rideshare operators or others targeting patrons leaving the venue at particular hours, the venue may owe a duty to take reasonable steps to warn patrons, to provide safer transport options, or to coordinate with police and rideshare companies to mitigate the risk.
The Peel Hotel is a long-established institution in the LGBTQI+ community, and our investigation does not assume bad faith by the venue. We do investigate what the venue knew, when it knew it, and what it did. We also note the cultural reality identified in the police evidence: “It is an LGBTQI+ venue and typically those people struggle to come forward to report.” The venues that serve our communities bear a particular responsibility to ensure that their premises are not used, even passively, as hunting grounds.
Other Defendants We Investigate
Beyond DiDi and the Peel Hotel, our investigation examines whether any other entities share responsibility. If, for example, another booking service was involved, or if a venue promotion or third-party service contributed to the circumstances, those defendants are considered in the same disciplined process.
The Evidence That Disappears While You Decide Whether to Act
The single most important thing we can tell you about evidence in a sexual assault case is this: the proof is fragile, and it dies on a clock you do not control.
The CCTV from the Peel Hotel is overwritten on a rolling cycle, typically 28 to 90 days depending on the venue’s system. Council CCTV from the Collingwood street network is also subject to retention limits. The DiDi app data, which may include GPS records, driver activity logs, app-state records showing whether the driver was online, offline, or in a particular state at particular times, is held on servers that may be located outside Australia and is subject to DiDi’s own data-retention policies and the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). The driver’s vehicle, if it is a recent model, may have its own telematics data. The forensic evidence from the assault, which is what the criminal case will rely on, must be collected promptly through a forensic medical examination at a designated facility.
Each of these records can be lost. The way to stop the loss is to act. The first letter our firm writes on your behalf, the moment we are retained, is a litigation hold and preservation request. We send it to DiDi, to the Peel Hotel, to the City of Yarra (which operates the local CCTV network), to Victoria Police, to any forensic medical facility that examined you, and to any other entity we identify as holding relevant records. That letter freezes the evidence. It is the most important letter you will ever receive from a law firm, because it is the one that makes the rest of the case possible.
Investigating officer’s statement to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court (as reported in contemporary coverage of the committal hearing): “The accused appears to be targeting the Peel Hotel for unknown reasons. It is an LGBTQI+ venue and typically those people struggle to come forward to report. He had been doing laps around the area around the hotel prior to picking up the victim.”
This statement, made under oath by a serving investigator, is exactly the kind of evidence the civil case will rely on, but only if the supporting records are preserved.
The Time You Have to Sue, and Why You Should Not Wait
Under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Victoria), the general rule is that a personal injury action must be commenced within three years of the date the cause of action is discoverable. For a sexual assault, the cause of action is usually discoverable from the date of the assault itself, so the practical time limit is three years from the date of the assault.
There are critical exceptions. Under section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958, the court has a discretion to extend the limitation period where it is just and reasonable to do so, having regard to the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, the nature of the evidence, the prejudice to the defendant, the plaintiff’s age, the conduct of the defendant, and the steps taken by the plaintiff to obtain advice. The Victorian Parliament has, in the context of child sexual abuse, removed limitation periods for actions by victims of child sexual abuse, and the same spirit of reform has been canvassed in the context of adult sexual assault.
For an adult survivor of sexual assault, the practical advice is this: you have three years from the date of the assault to file a civil claim, and the court has discretion to extend that time, but the longer you wait, the more you gamble with your own case. Witnesses’ memories fade. Records get lost. Surveillance footage overwrites. The defendant may dispose of assets. The defendant’s defence team hardens. Act now, not later.
For a child survivor, the position is even more favourable. The Limitation of Actions Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2015 removed limitation periods for child sexual abuse actions. If you were a child when the assault happened, the door is still open, however long ago it was.
What Compensation the Law Allows in a Victorian Sexual Assault Case
The civil damages in a Victorian sexual assault case can be substantial. The categories of recoverable damage are the same as in any other intentional tort claim, but the magnitudes reflect the severity of the harm.
Past and future medical and psychological treatment. This includes the cost of acute care, hospital admissions, specialist consultations, prescription medications, and the full cost of trauma-focused psychological treatment. For a survivor of rape, ongoing psychological care is often needed for years, and the cost is meaningful. The evidence on the medical side is built from your treating practitioners’ records and the opinions of a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist.
Past and future loss of earning capacity. If the assault has affected your ability to work, study, or pursue your career, the law allows you to recover the income you have lost and the income you will lose in the future. The forensic economist’s evidence is built from your employment history, your earning trajectory, and the medical evidence about your capacity.
Pain and suffering. This is the human cost of what was done to you, and Victorian law permits the recovery of damages for pain and suffering even where the injury is psychological rather than physical. The Wrongs Act 1958 ensures that victims of intentional torts are not barred by the “significant injury” threshold that would otherwise apply to negligence claims.
Loss of amenities of life. This is the loss of the joys of life you used to enjoy, the hobbies, the relationships, the social life, the freedom to move through the world without fear. The law measures this as a distinct head of damage.
Out-of-pocket expenses. Medical expenses not covered by Medicare or private health insurance, travel costs to treatment, security upgrades to your home, lost personal property.
Exemplary damages. Where the conduct is deliberate or shows contumelious disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, Victorian law permits an award of exemplary damages designed to punish the wrongdoer and to deter similar conduct in the future. For a driver who allegedly waited outside an LGBTQI+ venue, selected a vulnerable patron, and sexually assaulted her, the case for exemplary damages is real.
For a serious sexual assault case, the total damages commonly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and, in cases of severe psychological injury with significant economic loss, can run into seven figures. The exact number in your case depends on the medical and economic evidence, and a forensic accountant and a forensic psychiatrist are the experts who build it.
The DiDi Playbook: Three Moves and How We Beat Each
We have read the file. We know the plays the platform and its insurers will run. We have our counters ready.
Move One: “The driver was offline.” DiDi tells the press and the court that the driver was not logged in to the platform at the time. The implication is that DiDi had no connection to the ride and no responsibility for what followed. Our counter: “offline” is a technical state, not a legal shield. The driver was operating a commercial passenger vehicle in a market the platform dominates. The driver was allegedly circling an LGBTQI+ venue that the platform’s drivers service. The driver allegedly held himself out as a DiDi driver to a passenger who had tried to book a DiDi. Whether the app said “online” or “offline” is a piece of evidence about how the platform chooses to police its drivers, not a get-out-of-jail card. We obtain the driver’s full DiDi app activity, his rating history, his complaint history, and his screening file, and we let a jury see it.
Move Two: “The driver is an independent contractor.” The platform will say that Abukar was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the platform is not vicariously liable for his conduct. Our counter: the label on the contract is one factor. The reality of the platform’s control over the driver is the question the court will answer. A platform that sets fares, dictates routes, monitors performance, controls branding, requires specific vehicle standards, and can deactivate a driver at will is exercising a degree of control that Australian courts have repeatedly found inconsistent with a true independent-contractor relationship for liability purposes. We also have a separate path that does not depend on the employment finding at all: the platform’s direct corporate negligence in screening, training, and supervising the driver, and its failure to take reasonable care in the operation of a service that exposes the public to foreseeable risk. That path is open whether the driver is an employee or a contractor.
Move Three: “You got into the car voluntarily.” The platform and the driver will say that you were a willing passenger, that you chose to enter the vehicle, and that the assault is therefore not the platform’s fault. Our counter: under Victorian law, the relevant question is not whether the victim was willing to enter the vehicle but whether the conduct that followed was criminal. Consent to a ride is not consent to sexual penetration. Tonic immobility, the documented involuntary freeze response in sexual assault, is well-established in clinical literature and explains why many victims do not fight or flee. The legal system understands that the absence of physical resistance is not the presence of consent. The platform’s argument collapses on its own premise: a driver who has been told by the company to take passengers from point A to point B has a duty to do exactly that, and the moment he deviates into criminal conduct, the platform that put him in the position to do so is in the room.
Move Four (we are giving you four because the case is that serious): “You had been drinking.” The platform and the driver will suggest that your alcohol consumption undermines your credibility or your claim. Our counter: under the Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria), a person who is so affected by alcohol or another substance as to be incapable of consenting to sexual activity cannot, as a matter of law, consent. The fact that you had been drinking does not change the criminal nature of what was done to you, and it does not reduce the defendant’s civil liability. Australian courts have, in case after case, rejected the suggestion that a victim’s consumption of alcohol somehow makes the perpetrator less responsible. We have also seen, again and again, defence teams use this argument as a smear, and we know how to disarm it.
The Scientific Reality the Defence Will Try to Hide
We want you to know what the medical literature actually says, because the defence will assume you do not know.
The largest study of its kind, the National Comorbidity Survey, found that rape is the most psychologically damaging traumatic event that researchers measured. It is more likely to cause post-traumatic stress disorder than combat exposure, than a serious car crash, than most other violent crimes. The clinical literature is unambiguous on this point, and the data is reproducible across multiple research groups.
Most rape survivors freeze. It is an automatic survival response, mediated by the brainstem, that physically prevents the person from moving or speaking. It is not consent. It is not a choice. A controlled study of nearly 300 women who presented at a Stockholm emergency clinic for rape victims found that more than 70 percent reported at least significant tonic immobility during the assault, and almost half reported extreme tonic immobility. The same study found that the survivors who experienced tonic immobility were substantially more likely to develop PTSD and severe depression. The defence will try to make your body’s involuntary response into evidence of consent. We will not let them.
Trauma can scramble memory. Under extreme stress, the brain prioritises the central, sensory details of the attack (the smell of the car, the sound of the driver’s voice, the feeling of his hand) while degrading the peripheral, contextual details (the time, the sequence, the place). A survivor who can describe the assault vividly but cannot give a perfect timeline is describing trauma, not lying.
These are not opinions. These are findings from peer-reviewed clinical research, and the defence’s expert will not be able to dispute them.
The Free Medical and Counselling Resources Available to You Right Now
You do not need a lawyer to access immediate support. The following services are free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week:
- 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) — the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service
- Victoria Police Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team (SOCIT) — for reporting and investigative support
- The Sexual Assault Crisis Line (SACL) — Victorian-specific crisis support
- The Centre Against Sexual Assault (CASA) — your local CASA House for free specialist counselling, advocacy, and forensic medical examination
- Thorne Harbour Health — for LGBTQI+ survivors specifically, and for the friends and family supporting you
- The Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT) — for financial assistance regardless of whether you pursue a civil claim
Please call one of these numbers today. We are lawyers, and we will do the legal work. These services are the people who will hold you up while we do it.
Our Team: The Two Lawyers Who Will Be Working This Case
Attorney911 is led by Ralph P. Manginello, our managing partner, who has spent 27 years trying cases in Texas state and federal court, including in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he still writes the way an investigator thinks, looking for the record that wasn’t supposed to be there. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas, and he is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He is the kind of lawyer who tries the case himself, who knows the file cold, and who calls the client back the same day.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney, and he brings a perspective the other side will not expect. Lupe spent years as an insurance defense attorney inside a national firm, sitting in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like the one you are about to bring. He learned the other side’s playbook from the inside, and he has spent his career since then using that knowledge for the people those playbooks were designed to beat. Lupe is fluent in Spanish, and he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots to the King Ranch, and he fights for the underdog in the same way the King Ranch fought for the cattle. Together, Ralph and Lupe bring more than four decades of trial experience to the firm, and they have recovered more than $50 million for clients across commercial-vehicle, catastrophic-injury, and wrongful-death cases.
For an Australian case, our firm works with experienced local counsel. We do not pretend to hold an Australian practising certificate, and we will not. What we do is bring our experience, our evidence-investigation discipline, and our trial-readiness to the table, in partnership with a Victorian barrister and solicitor who will run the case in the local courts under local rules. We have done this work in cases across the United States, and we can do it for you.
What Happens When You Call Us
When you ring 1-888-ATTY-911, you reach a live member of our team, not an answering service, at any hour of any day. We will spend time with you. We will not push you. We will not pressure you to retain us. We will listen to what you are willing to tell us, and we will tell you what your options are.
If you choose to retain us, we work on a contingency basis. You pay nothing up front, and we receive a fee only if we recover for you. The standard contingency in our firm is 33.33 percent before a trial and 40 percent at trial, and we will explain that to you in plain language before you sign anything. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you, and we will point you toward the resources that are.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a time limit to file a civil claim for sexual assault in Victoria?
Under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), the general rule is three years from the date the cause of action is discoverable, which for a sexual assault is usually the date of the assault itself. The court has a discretion to extend that time under section 23A where it is just and reasonable to do so, and there is no limitation period at all for child sexual abuse claims. The practical advice is to act now, because every day that passes is a day the evidence can be lost.
Can I sue DiDi if the driver was “offline”?
Yes. “Offline” is a piece of evidence about the platform’s policing, not a shield against liability. Under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 (Vic) and the regulations made under it, a booking service provider owes safety duties to the public, and those duties are not eliminated by a driver being logged off. The platform can also be held directly liable for its own corporate negligence in screening, training, and supervising drivers, and under the doctrine of apparent agency where the driver held himself out as a DiDi driver to a passenger who was reasonable in relying on that representation.
Can I sue the Peel Hotel or other venue where I was drinking?
Possibly. Under Victorian occupier liability principles, the occupier of a public venue owes a duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to patrons, including harm that may occur in the immediate vicinity as patrons enter and leave. Where the venue has actual or constructive knowledge of a pattern of predatory behaviour by third parties targeting patrons at particular hours, it may owe a duty to take reasonable steps to warn, to provide safer transport options, or to coordinate with police. We investigate what the venue knew, when it knew it, and what it did.
Do I have to report the assault to police before I can make a civil claim?
No. The civil case is independent of the criminal case, and you do not need a criminal conviction, or even a criminal charge, to bring a civil claim. The civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. That said, a police report and a forensic medical examination strengthen the civil case, and we strongly encourage you to make both, through the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team and your local CASA House, as soon as you can.
What damages can I recover in a Victorian sexual assault case?
Under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), recoverable damages in an intentional tort case include past and future medical and psychological treatment costs, past and future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, out-of-pocket expenses, and, where the conduct is deliberate or shows contumelious disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, exemplary damages under section 37A. The Wrongs Act 1958 ensures that victims of intentional torts are not barred by the “significant injury” threshold that applies to negligence claims. The total damages in a serious sexual assault case can run from the hundreds of thousands into seven figures, depending on the medical and economic evidence.
Will my identity be kept confidential if I sue?
Victorian courts have the power to make non-publication orders to protect the identity of sexual assault complainants, and the practice is well established. We will seek a non-publication order at the earliest opportunity. The criminal case may also be the subject of a non-publication order, and that order may extend to civil proceedings arising from the same facts. Confidentiality is a real protection in Australian sexual assault cases, and we use it.
Can I make a claim if I had been drinking that night?
Yes. The fact that you had been drinking does not, in law, reduce the perpetrator’s liability or your right to compensation. Under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), a person who is so affected by alcohol or another substance as to be incapable of consenting to sexual activity cannot, as a matter of law, consent. The defence will try to use your drinking against you, and we will anticipate that move and defeat it.
What is the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT), and how does it differ from a civil claim?
VOCAT is a Victorian tribunal that provides financial assistance to victims of violent crime, including sexual assault, regardless of whether the perpetrator is charged or convicted. The application is filed with VOCAT, and the assistance is determined by a member of the tribunal on the balance of probabilities. VOCAT awards are typically in the range of up to $20,000 or more for sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. VOCAT is not a substitute for a civil claim; it is a separate, faster path to immediate financial relief, and we recommend applying for VOCAT assistance in parallel with pursuing the civil claim.
How long do I have to keep evidence?
You do not have to do anything to keep evidence; the parties who hold the evidence have to keep it for you, but only if you put them on notice. The day you retain us, we send litigation-hold letters to DiDi, to the Peel Hotel, to the City of Yarra, to the forensic medical facility that examined you, and to any other entity holding relevant records. Those letters freeze the evidence. CCTV from the venue, council CCTV, DiDi’s app data, the driver’s vehicle telematics, your forensic medical records, the police brief of evidence, and the cell tower records are all things that we move to preserve the moment we are retained.
What if I cannot remember everything that happened?
That is the norm, not the exception. Clinical research consistently shows that trauma degrades the brain’s ability to encode peripheral, contextual details (the time, the sequence, the place) while preserving central, sensory details (the smell, the sound, the touch). A survivor who can describe the assault vividly but cannot reconstruct a perfect timeline is describing trauma, not deception. The defence will try to use memory gaps against you, and we have a body of clinical literature we can put to the court to explain exactly why memory gaps are the rule, not the exception, in sexual assault cases.
Is there a class action against DiDi in Australia?
We are not aware of a filed class action against DiDi in Australia at the time of writing. The investigation into a class action depends on the number of survivors, the commonality of the legal issues, and the procedural rules of the relevant court. If you know of other women or men who have had similar experiences with DiDi, we want to hear from you, because the strength of a class action depends on the strength of the group, and you may not be alone.
Can I sue DiDi’s parent company in China?
Australian courts have jurisdiction over Australian-resident defendants and over conduct that occurs in Australia. DiDi operates in Australia through an Australian subsidiary. The question of whether the Chinese parent can be sued in Australia depends on a complex set of factors including the corporate structure, the location of decision-making, the location of the data, and the existence of service arrangements. We investigate the corporate structure in detail before naming a defendant, and we name the right one, in the right court, under the right statute, the first time.
I do not live in Melbourne. Can I still bring a claim?
Yes. The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and the Victorian courts have provisions for out-of-state and overseas plaintiffs. The venue for the claim depends on where the defendant is located and where the tort occurred, and the modern Victorian courts are well used to managing cases where the plaintiff lives elsewhere. Our firm works with local counsel who can appear in the Victorian courts on your behalf regardless of where you live.
What is the difference between a civil claim and a VOCAT application?
A VOCAT application is a fast, accessible, no-cost application for financial assistance that is decided by a tribunal member on the balance of probabilities. A civil claim is a damages lawsuit filed in the County Court of Victoria or the Supreme Court of Victoria, governed by the rules of evidence and procedure, that can result in a much larger award. The two are not mutually exclusive. We recommend applying for VOCAT immediately, in parallel with preparing the civil claim.
Will I have to face the driver in court?
In the criminal case, you may have to give evidence, and you have the right to give evidence via closed-circuit television or to have the public gallery cleared, and to have a support person beside you. In the civil case, the procedural rules are different, and we will explain them to you before any step is taken. The defence will not be allowed to ambush you, and we will prepare you thoroughly for anything you are asked to face.
How We Begin
The next step is yours. You can ring 1-888-ATTY-911 at any time, day or night, and a live person on our team will answer. We will listen, we will answer your questions, and we will not push you. If you want to retain us, we will explain the contingency fee in plain English, and we will get to work the same day. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you, and we will point you toward the organisations and practitioners who are.
The first thing we will do after you retain us is send the preservation letters. The second thing we will do is begin mapping every defendant and every source of recovery. The third thing we will do is connect you with a Victorian barrister and solicitor who will work with us on your case. The fourth thing we will do is make sure you have the medical and therapeutic support you need, through your local CASA House, before we ask you to do anything that requires you to relive what happened.
You trusted an app to get you home safe. The system failed. The law is the way you hold the system to account. We are here to walk you through it.
Call Attorney911 now: 1-888-ATTY-911. Free, confidential consultation. No fee unless we win. We work with experienced Victorian counsel to represent sexual-assault survivors in Collingwood and across Australia. Same-day evidence preservation. PTSD-informed intake. Bilingual intake available. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Sources and Further Reading
- Victorian Wrongs Act 1958 (Part III, sections 5, 37A, etc.)
- Victorian Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (section 23A, and the child sexual abuse amendments)
- Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria)
- Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria)
- Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Victoria)
- Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 (Victoria) and the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Regulations 2018
- Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) — metadata retention
- Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Conditions) — telecommunications data
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
- Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic)
- Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21 — High Court of Australia — control test for employment/agency
- Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB. “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey.” Archives of General Psychiatry. 1995;52(11):1048-1060.
- Möller A, Söndergaard HP, Helström L. “Tonic immobility during sexual assault — a common reaction predicting post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2017;96(8):932-938.
- 1800 RESPECT — 1800 737 732
- Sexual Assault Crisis Line (Victoria)
- The Centre Against Sexual Assault (CASA) — your local CASA House
- Thorne Harbour Health — for LGBTQI+ survivors
- Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT) — Victoria
- Victoria Police Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team (SOCIT)
- The Attorney911 team — Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña are available 24/7 at 1-888-ATTY-911. We also handle related personal injury cases involving brain injuries, wrongful death, and insurance disputes. For more on what we do, see our practice areas overview and our contact page — sorry, see our contact page.