Man denies reporting Alan Jones to police in order to 'get money'

Alan Jones complainant denies reporting broadcaster to police to 'get money' Thu 6 Aug 2026 at 5:15pm In short A barrister representing Alan Jones has accused one of his complainants of reporting the former broadcaster to police in order to get compensation. The man, known at Complainant J, denied he was after money, saying "I don't want anything from this". A non-publication order placed over the cross-examination on Wednesday was lifted on Thursday. A man accusing Alan Jones of indecently assaulting him as a 17-year-old made a police complaint to "get money", the former broadcaster's lawyer has told a Sydney court. Complainant J is under cross-examination on day four of Mr Jones's criminal trial, where he has pleaded not guilty to 22 charges of indecent assault and sexual touching. The Local Court in Sydney has heard Complainant J met Mr Jones in high school, and alleges he was kissed and touched by the former broadcaster on multiple occasions, starting when he was 17. It has also heard Mr Jones gave Complainant J a mobile phone, car and weekly payments of between $400 and $600 a week, which stopped in 2012 when contact between the pair became less frequent. A non-publication order placed over the cross-examination on Wednesday was lifted on Thursday afternoon, meaning two days' worth of evidence can now be reported. Mr Jones's barrister, Gabrielle Bashir SC, revealed in her cross-examination on Wednesday that Complainant J was a police officer for many years, but resigned from the job amid claims of misconduct after a "serious misconduct" breach. Ms Bashir put to Complainant J that he was in financial difficulty due to his unemployment, and made a complaint to police about Mr Jones to get compensation. "Did you see an opportunity there for something life changing to happen to you?" Ms Bashir asked. "Isn't it the case that you did see bringing such an allegation as an opportunity to ultimately get money paid to you by Mr Jones? "How so? No," Complainant J replied. "You well understand that civil proceedings are possible to bring, don't you?" Ms Bashir said. Complainant J replied that he did not think he could claim compensation from Mr Jones because of the time that had elapsed but told the court he would not accept money from the defendant anyway. "I think I've been very clear," he said. "I don't want anything from this." Ms Bashir's cross-examination was subject to an interim non-publication order on Wednesday, after the crown flagged it would seek to have much of it ruled as inadmissible. Ms Wright raised concerns that without that order, media would report evidence that ended up being ruled out of the trial. Judge Walsh lifted the order after Ms Wright withdrew her objection about possible inadmissible evidence. Court told Jones gave car to 17-year-old The trial also heard Complainant J previously gave evidence he received a mobile phone from Mr Jones when he was 14 or 15 years old and was gifted a car when he was 17 years old and still in high school. Under cross-examination, Complainant J accepted that the recorded connection date for the mobile number attached to the gifted phone suggested that he was 18 years old when he received it. Ms Bashir also presented evidence that vehicle registration documents showed the car Mr Jones had purchased for the complainant had not been registered in his name until he was over the age of 18 and had left school, to which he agreed. "If the dates and times are inconsistent, it is from the best of my memory," Complainant J said. "The offences [against me], I'm clear of what happened." Complainant J denied claims from Ms Bashir that he was "trying paint a picture" of Mr Jones giving him those gifts when he was a schoolboy and also denied that he was "trying to fit a schoolboy narrative" around the allegations of "sexual touching". Ms Bashir suggested to Complainant J that Mr Jones had never called him a "good boy" during a conversation about increasing his weekly payments from the radio host and that he understood the money was to solely to assist with his "training and competing". "You are recasting these payments as something sinister … when you knew … they were payments to support your career?" Ms Bashir propositioned. "Absolutely not," Complainant J replied. The complainant rejected the defence's claim that an increase in payments came from Mr Jones seven days after he missed rent, because he had requested it. "Your evidence in relation to the payments into your account from Belford productions [Mr Jones' company] and the increases in payments, has been you trying to assert that Mr Jones had some ulterior motive for making those payments to you?" Ms Bashir asked. "No, I was not trying to assert that," Complainant J answered. The trial continues.