The prosecutor in the Alan Jones trial has accused the defence team in court of “intimidating” an alleged victim’s former girlfriend after she asserted she wasn’t financially motivated to provide evidence supporting her ex’s allegations.

On Thursday, complainant J’s ex-girlfriend was cross-examined by Jones’s defence team, during which she maintained she had a conversation with J more than 20 years ago in which he alleged Jones touched him.

Jones is facing a trial before judge Glenn Walsh in Downing Centre court after he pleaded not guilty to 20 charges of indecent assault and two of sexual touching against six complainants.

Last week, J, a former student athlete and the first complainant to appear in the trial, told the court he reported the alleged indecent assaults to police in 2024 after Jones was arrested because he wanted his child to know “right from wrong”. He also said he disclosed allegations Jones had touched him to his former high school girlfriend, whom he met in the mid-2000s when she was 16.

Jones’s barrister, Gabrielle Bashir SC, asserted on Thursday in her cross-examination that the ex-girlfriend had a financial motive to fabricate that J had made the disclosure when they were teens. Bashir read messages to the court in which J told the girlfriend he “promised” to look after her after she provided her statement to police, with Bashir asserting this meant financially.

But the ex-girlfriend denied the evidence was fabricated or that there was a financial motive, saying J “wanted to come out and tell his truth”.

“It never crossed my mind and I know he didn’t mean that either, we’ve never spoken about it,” she said of assertions the message that J promised to look after her meant financially.

Bashir later produced before the court a $1,200 fine the ex-girlfriend had received two years ago, which prosecutor Georgina Wright objected to. Wright argued Bashir was “intimidating” the witness and the move was an attempt to “besmirch” the witness.

“The witness has denied financial issues,” Wright said, before adding a $1,200 fine wouldn’t contest that.

Walsh allowed the questioning saying it didn’t amount to intimidation. He said the questioning flowed into the theory put forward by Jones’s team that there was a financial motive for J and his ex-girlfriend to fabricate the evidence, therefore it was relevant.

“The air should be cleared between parties in my view, for we are going to be together it seems to me for a number of months,” Walsh said.

Asked by Bashir about the fine, the witness agreed the sum was significant to her at the time. She also agreed it required her to attend a 12-month program which had a “financial consequence” attached to it.

“You had also been working on maintaining your sobriety?” Bashir asked.

“Yes,” the witness responded.

“I suggest at the time financial help would have been very welcome,” Bashir said.

“No, I didn’t need financial help.”

On Tuesday, the ex-girlfrend told the court that she remembered a conversation with J late one evening 20 years ago, during which he said: “Alan Jones has touched me inappropriately.”

Bashir repeatedly suggested the conversation 20 years ago had never happened.

“No, I remember that clearly,” she said.

The witness said J was embarrassed and couldn’t look her in the eye.

“He felt uncomfortable telling me; he had his head down,” she told the court.

“I said, ‘Is this something you want to speak about to somebody, and maybe you should report it,’ and he said a very firm no.”

The court has heard that J made a report to the police about the nine indecent assault allegations after he saw news reports about Jones’s arrest over other indecent assault allegations.

Walsh has allowed the prosecution to expand the dates of some of the alleged offending against J, after apparent inconsistencies in the evidence about the timeline given by witnesses. The crown had originally alleged that Jones kissed him and touched him on a trip to Fitzroy Falls some time in 2004. However, the crown now says the incidents may have happened anytime between January 2004 and April 2006, meaning J may have been between 18 and 21 years old.

The trial before Walsh continues.

– Additional reporting by Amanda Meade