Heated texts between Sam Burgess and his ex-wife Phoebe Burgess sent in the wake of an argument between the NRL star and his former father-in-law have been aired in court, as Mr Burgess fights a charge of intimidation over the 2019 quarrel.
At Moss Vale Local Court on Friday Mr Burgess agreed he launched a verbal tirade at Mitchell Hooke, yelling at him “You’re a f..king piece of shit” and telling him he was a “bad man” and “bad at heart”.
But he said Mr Hooke, then 64, was the aggressor, and they were both angry and shouting at each other.
Read Next
As he drove away from the altercation, which broke out over a disagreement about his and Ms Burgess’s kids, the former couple exchanged angry texts.
“Really should stick to your plan Phoebe. That didn’t work,” he texted her according to court documents.
“Don‘t you ever message me again,” she replied.
Shortly after Ms Burgess texted again to call him “a pig”.
“You’re an absolute low life. How dare you,” she wrote. “We are done – at least 2 people have now seen who you really are you f..k.”
Mr Burgess wrote back: “You guys are all the same. Your dad does exactly what you do. None stop, following me around provoking me. It was exactly like you.”
Mr Burgess, 32, has pleaded not guilty to one charge of intimidation and an alternate charge of common assault over the alleged fight at Mr Hooke’s property on October 19, 2019.
His barrister Phillip Boulten SC told the court on Friday it amounted to “two grown men arguing” and the complaint to police was part of a concerted campaign to destroy the South Sydney champion’s career.
The former Rabbitohs captain said the argument began when he told Mr Hooke, Ms Burgess’s father, that he was being treated “inhumanely” in relation to the children.
He said Mr Hooke continued to speak about the issue, ignoring him when he asked him to stop “four or five times”.
“I was calm inside the house,” Mr Burgess told the court on Friday, saying to police prosecutor Senior Sergeant Jamie Palmer he was speaking “exactly as I’m speaking to you now”.
Mr Burgess denied he was standing a mere 20cm from Mr Hooke at the time of this discussion and said he was 3-5 metres away.
He also rejected the suggestion he raised his hand and yelled: “F..k you, I’m going to get you, you have done this. You have orchestrated this. F..k you, I”m going to come after you.”
When the pair went outside, Mr Burgess said, “we swore at each other and we did have a little argument, yes”.
He said the argument outside occurred when the two men were standing approximately 10 metres away from one another.
In her closing address, Ms Palmer pointed to evidence from Mr Hooke’s daughter Harriet Hooke, who said she exited the stables, feared her father was about to be assaulted and moved him away.
“It doesn’t make sense,” Ms Palmer said.
“If they were already 10 metres (away from one another), that wouldn’t have been required.”
She said Mr Hooke was “not a wilting flower” and used to robust discussions in the business world, but was left so rattled by the dispute Ms Burgess had come home to find him “pale” and “shaking”.
Ms Burgess was so concerned she went to the fridge to get him a sugary drink, Ms Palmer said.
Mr Boulten said prosecutors had to prove Mr Burgess had threatened “I’ll get you” to Mr Hooke in order to find him guilty.
“If that fails and you’re not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt my client threatened Mr Hooke ‘I’ll get you’, what you have is two grown men arguing … and that is not intimidation,” he said.
He argued the charge arose as part of a concerted campaign to rubbish Mr Burgess‘s reputation.
“Mitch Hooke and Phoebe Burgess have tried to destroy my client‘s career,” he said.
“This case is part of it. And it‘s not going to stop here.”
The barrister said Mr Hooke and Ms Burgess had called lawyers and PR consultants before dialling triple-0 or taking part in a police interview about the alleged intimidation.
Mr Burgess also called a PR advisor and a lawyer in the wake of the incident, the court heard.
“This is an unusual phenomenon,” the barrister said. “This is not the way things normally occur. This is top shelf treatment.”
He suggested both Mr Hooke and Ms Burgess had given cagey responses when questioned in cross-examination about who they had spoken to before calling police.
Mr Boulten also hit out at a story in The Australian published prior to the start of the hearing last year, saying Mr Hooke and Ms Burgess had “enlisted” journalist Sharri Markson to damage Mr Burgess.
Ms Palmer said Ms Burgess had given a “clear account” of why she participated in that news story, and “it wasn’t to win points or ruin Mr Burgess’s career”.
She wanted “to tell the truth,” Ms Palmer said.
Magistrate Rabbidge will deliver his decision on February 5.
